JUDGMENT AND ORDER : DEVASHIS BARUAH, J. Heard Mr. I. Imchen, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners in the present batch of writ petitions. Mr. Sentiyanger, the learned counsel appears on behalf of the Union of India as well as NHIDCL and Mr. Imti Imsong, the learned Additional Advocate General of Nagaland appears on behalf of the State respondents. 2. The petitioners in the present batch of writ petitions belong to various villages whose lands are situated on either side of the Pfutsero to Phek Road. The grievance of the petitioners herein is that their lands have been taken away by the Respondent Authorities for widening of the Pfutsero to Phek Road without the authority of law. It is therefore the case of the petitioners herein that appropriate writ direction and order should be issued upon the respondents to pay compensation to the petitioners for taking over the land of the petitioners. It is under such circumstances, the present batch of writ petitions have been filed. It is however to observe that the petitioners duly admit that they have received damage compensation from the Respondent Authorities for the damages caused to their properties on account of taking over their lands. In other words, the grievances of the petitioners are that they have been deprived of the land compensation. 3. It is seen from the records that the respondents have filed their affidavit-in-opposition. It is the stand of the Union of India as well as the NHIDCL that they have widened the road on the assurance given by the State Government that the additional land required for widening of the road would be handed over to them free of cost by the State Government and in that regard referred to the communication dated 6th of August, 2020 issued by the Chief Secretary to the Government of Nagaland to the Managing Director of the NHIDCL. This Court had perused the communication dated 06.08.2020 issued by the Chief Secretary, Government of Nagaland, but it does not appear that the State of Nagaland had assured that the land would be handed over free of costs. This Court had perused the communication dated 06.08.2020 issued by the Chief Secretary, Government of Nagaland, but it does not appear that the State of Nagaland had assured that the land would be handed over free of costs. It is also mentioned in the said affidavit-in-opposition that pursuant to such communication issued on 06.08.2020, the Deputy Commissioner of Phek has also provided undertakings issued by the affected villages of the stretches of two-lane road to the Chief Engineer, National Highways, Nagaland and on the basis thereof, the constructions have been carried out. 4. The stand of the Respondent State as would appear from the affidavit-in-opposition so filed is that the Deputy Commissioner, Phek along with various members of the village councils have adopted a resolution to the effect that only damage compensation would have to be paid, but no land compensation would be required to be paid. It is also mentioned that damage compensation has been ascertained on the basis of the comprehensive guidelines issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Road Transport and Highways and such damage compensation have been duly paid by issuance of public notice to all persons concerned. It may be relevant to observe that from the affidavit of the State and the comprehensive guidelines issued, it is clear that the damage compensation has been worked out in terms with the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (for short, ‘the Act of 2013’). 5. Affidavits-in-reply have also been filed by the petitioners reiterating the statements made in the writ petitions and admitting that damage compensation have been received, but no compensation to the value of the land have been paid. 6. The question therefore arises in the instant proceedings is as to whether the petitioners herein would be entitled to compensation for their lands, as admittedly certain portions of their lands have been taken away by the Respondent Authorities for widening of the two lane road from Pfutsero to Phek. 7. This Court has heard the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the parties and has perused the materials on record. 8. The road in question from Pfutsero to Phek is a SARDP-NE Road, and admittedly, not a National Highway. Under such circumstances, the provisions of the National Highways Act, 1956 would not be applicable. 7. This Court has heard the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the parties and has perused the materials on record. 8. The road in question from Pfutsero to Phek is a SARDP-NE Road, and admittedly, not a National Highway. Under such circumstances, the provisions of the National Highways Act, 1956 would not be applicable. Be that as it may, on account of the widening of the road, admittedly certain portions of the lands of the petitioners have been taken away. The Respondent Authorities duly admit that no compensation have been paid for the value of the land. Only compensation has been paid to the damage caused to the petitioners while taking away their lands. In the opinion of this Court, such taking away of the lands of the petitioners would only permissible if it is done by the authority of law, else it would be in violation to Article 300A of the Constitution. 9. It is also very pertinent to mention that in the State of Nagaland, there are various acquisition laws which are applicable. For example, the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, the Nagaland Land (Requisition and Acquisition) Act, 1965 etc. For the purpose of vesting the right over a land which belongs to the petitioners, the same has to be done by applying the applicable acquisition laws. In this perspective, this Court finds it relevant to take note of Nagaland Land (Requisition and Acquisition) Act, 1965 (for short, ‘the Act of 1965’) which consolidates the law for requisition and speedy acquisition of premises and land for certain public purposes. 10. Section 3 of the Act of 1965 empowers the State Government or any person authorized in that behalf to requisition any premises or land. Section 6 of the Act of 1965 relates to acquisition of land. It is very pertinent to take note of Section 6 of the Act of 1965 and the same is reproduced herein under:- “ Acquisition of land.- 6. Section 6 of the Act of 1965 relates to acquisition of land. It is very pertinent to take note of Section 6 of the Act of 1965 and the same is reproduced herein under:- “ Acquisition of land.- 6. (1) Where any land has been requisitioned under section 3, the State Government may use or deal with it in such manner as may appear to it to be expedient and may acquire such land by publishing in the Official Gazette, a notice to the effect that the State Government has decided to acquire such land in pursuance of this section : “Provided that before issuing such notice, the State Government shall call upon the owner or any other person, who, in the opinion of the State Government may be interested in such land to show cause why the land should not be acquired and after considering the cause, if any, shown by any person interested in the land and after giving the parties an opportunity or being heard, the State Government may pass such order as it deems fit.” (2) Where a notice as aforesaid is published in the Official Gazette, the requisitioned land and premises shall, on and from the beginning of the day on which the notice is so published, vest absolutely in the State Government free from all encumbrances and the period of requisition of such land shall end. (3) Subject to the provisions of this Act, on such vesting the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 [Act 1 of 1894] with the rules framed thereunder shall, so far as may be, apply to such lands.” 11. A perusal of the above quoted provision, more particularly Section 6 (1) of the Act of 1965 which shows that the State has the power to acquire the land which have already been requisitioned under Section 3 of the Act of 1965 by publishing in the Official Gazette, a notice to the effect that the State Government has decided to acquire such land in pursuance to Section 6 of the Act of 1965. The proviso to Section 6(1) of the Act of 1965 provides an opportunity to be given to the owner or any other person interested of being heard prior to acquisition of the land. The proviso to Section 6(1) of the Act of 1965 provides an opportunity to be given to the owner or any other person interested of being heard prior to acquisition of the land. Section 6(2) of the Act of 1965 is of great relevance in as much as it statutorily mandates that upon the publication of the notice in the Official Gazette declaring the intention of the State Government to acquire the land, the land vests upon the State free from all encumbrances. Sub-section (3) of Section 6 of the Act of 1965 further mandates that on such vesting of the land, the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 has been statutorily incorporated into the Act of 1965. Therefore, from the above reading of Section 6 of the Act of 1965, it is seen that it is only upon the publication of the notice in terms with Section 6(1) of the Act of 1965 in the Official Gazette, the land would vest upon the State. 12. This Court further finds its relevance to take note of Section 9 of the Act of 1965 which empowers the State to directly acquire the land when there is an urgency. 13. Section 10 of the Act of 1965 is of great relevance and the same is reproduced herein under:- V esting and taking possession of land acquired under section 9 —10. When an order of acquisition is served or published under sub-section (2) of section 9, land shall vest absolutely in the State Government free from all encumbrances on the date the order is so served or published. (2) The Collector may, at any time after the land becomes so vested, proceed to take possession thereof. (3) On such vesting the order passed under sub-section (1) of section 9 shall be published in the Official Gazette in the manner prescribed.” 14. A perusal of the above quoted Section would show that when an order is passed under Section 9(2) of the Act of 1965, the land shall vest absolutely in the State Government free from all encumbrances on the date the order is served or published. It further stipulates that upon such vesting, the order so passed under Sub-section (1) of Section 9 shall be published in the Official Gazette in the manner prescribed. It further stipulates that upon such vesting, the order so passed under Sub-section (1) of Section 9 shall be published in the Official Gazette in the manner prescribed. Therefore, from a conjoint reading of Section 6, Section 9 and Section 10 of the Act of 1965 makes it clear that steps are required to be taken for the purpose of vesting of the rights over the land upon the State Government. Merely by way of certain Undertakings or Minutes or Resolutions adopted in the meetings, the land cannot vest upon the State. 15. This Court now finds it very relevant to take note of Section 11 of the Act of 1965 which stipulates the compensation payable. From a perusal of the said Section 11 of the Act of 1965, it reveals that when land is acquired under Section 6 or Section 9 of the Act of 1965, there is a requirement that the amount is determined by the Collector in the manner provided under the said Act of 1965. Upon determination, the amount has to be paid and failure to do so would attract interest in terms with Section 13 of the Act of 1965. 16. At this stage, it is relevant to take note of that Section 11 of the Act of 1965 stipulates the manner how the amount of compensation is required to be determined. Mr. Imti Imsong, the learned Additional Advocate General submitted that the amount of the compensation would be determined as per the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 in as much as the Act of 2013 have not been adopted by the Nagaland Legislative Assembly in terms with Article 371A(a) of the Constitution. The learned Additional Advocate General submitted that in terms with Article 371(a)(iv) of the Constitution, no act of the Parliament in respect of ownership and transfer of land and its resources shall apply to the State of Nagaland unless the Legislative Assembly of Nagaland by a resolution so decide. 17. The aforesaid contention of the learned Additional Advocate General, in the opinion of this Court, appears to have settled by the learned Division Bench of this Court in the case of State of Mizoram vs. R. Lalthanzauva and Ors., reported in 2024 SCC Online Gau 1871 . 17. The aforesaid contention of the learned Additional Advocate General, in the opinion of this Court, appears to have settled by the learned Division Bench of this Court in the case of State of Mizoram vs. R. Lalthanzauva and Ors., reported in 2024 SCC Online Gau 1871 . It is relevant to observe that the learned Division Bench of this Court in the said case was seized with the question as to whether the Act of 2013 would be applicable in the State of Mizoram in view of the bar contained in Article 371G(a) of the Constitution. It may not be out of place to observe that Article 371G(a) of the Constitution is pari-materia with Article 371A(a) of the Constitution. This Court finds it relevant to take note of the following paragraphs of the judgment in the case of State of Mizoram (supra) which would show the contentions before the learned Division Bench of this Court:- “13. It is also argued by the leaned Advocate General, Mizoram that the learned Single Judge has failed to consider that under Article 371(G) of the Constitution, in its true spirit,wherein it is specifically mentioned that no Act of Parliament in respect of ownership and transfer of land shall apply to the State of Mizoram, unless the Legislative Assembly of the State of Mizoram by resolution so decides. It is contended that the Legislative Assembly of the State of Mizoram has never passed any resolution allowing application of the Act of 2013 in the State of Mizoram and in such circumstances, the direction given by the learned Single Judge to pay compensation to the private respondents/writ petitioners as per the provisions of the Act of 2013, is illegal. 14. The learned Advocate General has emphasized that though the Act of 2013 is an Act of Parliament but it is on the subject of ownership and transfer of property, which includes acquisition. It is contended that ownership and transfer of property find mention in Article 371(G) of the Constitution as well as in Entry 18 of List-II of Seventh Schedule of the Constitution. It is submitted that in view of the protection granted to the State of Mizoram under Article 371(G) of the Constitution and as per Entry 18 of List-II of Seventh Schedule of the Constitution, the Parliament has no power to make law on the subjects mentioned in the State List. It is submitted that in view of the protection granted to the State of Mizoram under Article 371(G) of the Constitution and as per Entry 18 of List-II of Seventh Schedule of the Constitution, the Parliament has no power to make law on the subjects mentioned in the State List. It is contended that when the Act of 2013 has no application in the State of Mizoram, there is no question of repugnancy of the Mizoram Land Acquisition Act with the Act of 2013 and as such, the provisions of Article 254 of the Constitution of India do not come into play. 15. The learned Advocate General has further argued that ownership means right of exclusive possession and enjoyment of thing owned, including the right to transmit it to others. It is contended that as acquisition is one of the modes of transfer which is a subject under the head of “ownership and transfer of property”, as enumerated in Entry 18 of List-II of Seventh Schedule of the Constitution, the State of Mizoram has exclusive right to enact a law on the said subject by virtue of Article 246 of the Constitution of India.” 18. The issue so formulated by the learned Division Bench of this Court in the case of State of Mizoram (supra) is at paragraph Nos. 21 & 24 which are reproduced herein below:- “21. We feel that the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, on which reliance is placed by the respective counsels, are not required to be gone into detail because the controversy in these appeals lies in a very narrow compass regarding the applicability of the Act made by the Parliament or the State Legislature on the subject of acquisition in the light of the provisions of the Constitution of India and other relevant laws. 24. The core question, which is to be decided in these appeals, is that which Act, i.e. the Act of 2013 or the Mizoram Land Acquisition Act, will apply in the State of Mizoram.” 19. The observations of the learned Division Bench in the case of State of Mizoram (supra) at paragraph Nos. 25, 26, 27, 28, 34, 35 & 36 being relevant are reproduced herein below:- 25. The observations of the learned Division Bench in the case of State of Mizoram (supra) at paragraph Nos. 25, 26, 27, 28, 34, 35 & 36 being relevant are reproduced herein below:- 25. So far as the finding of the learned Single Judge to the effect that there is clear repugnancy between the Act of 2013 and the Mizoram Land Acquisition Act and that the Mizoram Land Acquisition Act is less beneficial in comparison to the Act of 2013 are concerned, though the State has assailed those findings in these writ appeals, however, the learned Advocate General has failed to satisfy us that how those findings are not correct or not in consonance with law. We have assessed those findings in the light of the provisions of the Act of 2013 and the Mizoram Land Acquisition Act but we do not find any infirmity. 26. If we give wider meaning to the word “acquisition”, it appears that it involves transfer of ownership or transfer of title of properties. However, acquisition and requisition always treated as separate subject since the time the Constitution was framed and adopted. Originally, the entry “acquisition and requisition of property” in the respective fields find mention in all the 3(three) lists, i.e. List-I, List-II and List-III (33 in List-I, 36 in List-II and 42 in List-III). Later on, the Parliament felt that all the above entries essentially relating to the single subject of acquisition and requisition of property by the Government give rise to unnecessary technical difficulties in legislation. So in order to avoid those difficulties and to simplify the Constitutional position, it was proposed to omit the entries in the Union or State Lists and replace the entry in Concurrent List by a comprehensive entry covering the whole subject. Therefore, vide Constitution (Seventh Amendment) Act, 1956, 3(three) entries, i.e. Entry 33 in List-I, Entry 36 in List-II and Entry 42 in List-III were repealed and a single Entry 42 in the Concurrent List “Acquisition and requisition of property” was substituted. [See - the Constitution (Seventh Amendment) Act, 1956]. It means that apart from ownership and transfer of property, acquisition and requisition of property is made a separate entry and find place as Entry 42 in List-III of Seventh Schedule of the Constitution of India. 27. It is settled that entries in different lists should be read together without giving narrow meaning to them. It means that apart from ownership and transfer of property, acquisition and requisition of property is made a separate entry and find place as Entry 42 in List-III of Seventh Schedule of the Constitution of India. 27. It is settled that entries in different lists should be read together without giving narrow meaning to them. However, at the same time though an entry is to be given its widest meaning but it cannot be so interpreted so as to overwrite another entry or made another entry meaningless when there is an apparent conflict between the different entries. In such a situation, the role of the Court comes into play and its core duty is to reconcile the different entries. In this connection, reference may be made to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in Vijay Kumar Sharma v. State of Karnataka, (1990) 2 SCC 562 ; Union of India v. Shah Goverdhan L. Kabra Teachers' College, (2002) 8 SCC 228 ; Girnar Traders (3) v. State of Maharashtra, (2011) 3 SCC 1 and K.T. Plantation Private Limited v. State of Karnataka, (2011) 9 SCC 1 . 28. Taking into consideration the above situation, the Constitution Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Dr. M. Ismail Faruqui v. Union of India, (1994) 6 SCC 360 has held as under:— “30. It is significant to bear in mind that Entry 42, List III, as it now exists, was substituted by the Constitution (Seventh Amendment) Act to read as under:— ‘Acquisition and requisitioning of property.’ Before the Constitution (Seventh Amendment) Act, the relevant entries read as follows:— List I, Entry 33: ‘33. Acquisition or requisitioning of property for the purposes of the Union.’ List II, Entry 36: ‘36. Acquisition or requisitioning of property, except for the purposes of the Union, subject to the provisions of Entry 42 of List III.’ III, Entry 42: ‘42. Principles on which compensation for property acquired or requisitioned for the purposes of the Union or of a State or for any other public purpose, is to be determined, and the form and the manner in which such compensation is to be given.’ By the amendment so made, Entry 42, List III reads as extracted earlier while Entry 33, List I and Entry 36, List II have been omitted. The comprehensive Entry 42 in List III as a result of the Constitution (Seventh Amendment) Act leaves no doubt that an acquisition Act of this kind falls clearly within the ambit of this Entry and, therefore, the legislative competence of the Parliament to enact this legislation cannot be doubted. This ground of challenge is, therefore, rejected.” 34. In view of the above discussion, we are of the view that the Legislative Assembly of the State of Mizoram has enacted the Mizoram Land Acquisition Act by invoking the power conferred under Article 246 of the Constitution of India on the subject matter “acquisition and requisition of property” as enumerated in Entry 42 of List-III of Seventh Schedule of the Constitution and not on the subject enumerated in Entry 18 of List-II of the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution. As such, we have no hesitation in holding that the Act of 2013 is not hit by the restrictions imposed under Article 371(G) of the Constitution of India and the same is applicable in the State of Mizoram by virtue of Clause (2) of Section 1 of the Act of 2013, whereas the Mizoram Land Acquisition Act being repugnant to the Act of 2013, cannot be made applicable in the State of Mizoram in the absence of assent of the President of India in terms of Article 254 of the Constitution of India. 35. Under the constitutional scheme as per Article 256 of the Constitution, the executive power of every State is required to be exercised as to ensure compliance with the laws made by the Parliament and any existing laws which apply in that State. Article 257 of the Constitution provides that the executive power of every State shall be so exercised as not to impede or prejudice the exercise of the executive power of the Union. In such circumstances, the State of Mizoram is obliged to ensure compliance of the Act of 2013 made by the Parliament. 36. It is not in dispute that the State of Mizoram has determined the compensation in relation to the persons whose lands were acquired in the Helipad area by invoking the provisions of the Act of 2013. The explanation offered for that by the State Government is that the same was done under the orders passed by this Court passed in writ proceedings as well as contempt proceedings. The explanation offered for that by the State Government is that the same was done under the orders passed by this Court passed in writ proceedings as well as contempt proceedings. We are of the view that the said explanation is not justifiable because State cannot discriminate between its citizens, who are on the same footing, for whatever reasons.” 20. In view of the above decision of the learned Division Bench of this Court as reproduced herein above, this Court is of the opinion that the compensation to be determined upon acquisition being carried out under the Act of 1965 has to be in terms with the Act of 2013 and more particularly Sections 26 to 30 of the Act of 2013. At this stage, it is also relevant to observe that while determining the compensation, the petitioners would only be entitled to the value of the land and not for the damages as the petitioners have already received the damage compensation. 21. This Court for the present would not like to further decide on what would be the compensation payable to the petitioners as the same would require an adjudication of facts by the authorities concerned, but at the same time this Court has to observe that without carrying out an acquisition of the land in a manner provided under law, the Government of Nagaland cannot have a right over the land in question wherein the two-lane road has been widened. It is also a trite principle of law that no person whatsoever can be deprived of his right over a property without an authority of law. 22. Taking into account the above, this Court therefore is of the opinion that the instant batch of writ petitions are required to be disposed of by issuing appropriate writ, direction and order. 23. Accordingly, the writ petitions stand disposed with the following observations and directions:- (i) The Respondent Authorities shall have no right over the lands belonging to the petitioners wherein construction has been carried out under the SARDP-NE project for widening of the road from Pfutsero to Phek without acquiring the right over these lands by the authority of law. 23. Accordingly, the writ petitions stand disposed with the following observations and directions:- (i) The Respondent Authorities shall have no right over the lands belonging to the petitioners wherein construction has been carried out under the SARDP-NE project for widening of the road from Pfutsero to Phek without acquiring the right over these lands by the authority of law. (ii) Taking into account that the road in question, i.e. from Pfutsero to Phek is not a National Highway and as the road falls within the domain of the Government of Nagaland, the State Respondents are directed to carry out necessary acquisition as mandated under the Nagaland Land (Requisition and Acquisition) Act, 1965. (iii) The petitioners herein, upon such acquisition, would be entitled to compensation as determined under Section 11 of the Act of 1965. Such determination has to be made in terms with the Act of 2013 and more particularly Sections 26 to 30 of the Act of 2013. (iv) It is observed and directed that the compensation so determined in terms with Sections 26 to 30 of the Act of 2013 shall be paid after deducting the amount of damage compensation the petitioners have already received. (v) The entire exercise be completed within six months from the date a certified copy of present judgment and order is served by the Deputy Commissioner, Phek. The Respondent Nos.1, 2 & 3 shall also do the needful so that the entire exercise be completed within the period directed above.