Page No.# 1/4 GAHC030000432026 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/7/2026 Village Council, Tuipui D, r/b its President namely Sh. F. Lalthantluanga and 2 Ors. Tuipui D, Mizoram VERSUS The Union of India r/b the Secy. to the Govt. of India and 6 Ors. Ministry of Defence, Dept. of Defence, 101-A, South Block, New Delhi-11 Advocate for the Petitioner : Mr A.R. Malhotra Advocate for the Respondent : Ms Zairemsangpuii, CGC for R1-3 BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NELSON SAILO ORDER 27.03.2026 Heard Mr. A.R. Malhotra, learned counsel for the petitioners and Ms. Caroline K. Lungawipuii, learned Govt. Advocate appearing for the State respondents. 2. When the matter was listed on 09.02.2026, considering the issue involved, the learned Govt. Advocate was asked to obtain instructions in the matter. Page No.# 2/4 Today, Ms. Caroline K. Lungawipuii, learned Govt. Advocate submits that she has not yet receive the instructions and therefore prays for further time. 3. The case of the petitioners is that they are similarly situated with the petitioners in WP(C) No. 83/2023 and WP(C) No. 37/2025 and therefore, the two (2) writ petitions having already been disposed of by this Court, a similar order may be passed in the present case as well since their case is squarely covered. 4. It is the case of the petitioners that their lands were acquired by the respondents vide Draft Award No. 1/2022 for construction of approach road from Chhimtuipui Bridge (Tuipui ‘D’) within Hnahthial District, Mizoram under the provisions of the Mizoram (Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation & Resettlement) Act, 2016 (Act of 2016) instead of the provisions under the Right to Fair Compensation & Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation & Resettlement Act, 2013 (Act of 2013). 5. Be it stated herein that a coordinate Bench of this Court vide Judgment & Order dated 15.11.2017 passed in WP(C) Nos. 20 and 30 of 2014 has held that the Act of 2016 not to be applicable and that acquisition of land in the State should be done under the Act of 2013. The said decision was put to challenge by the State by filing Writ Appeals No. 70 and 71 of 2018. The Writ Appeals Page No.# 3/4 were considered on 30.10.2024 and they were dismissed while the Judgment & Order of the learned Single Judge dated 15.11.2017 was upheld. Following the said decision, the petitioners in WP(C) No. 83/2023 and WP(C) No. 37/2025 approached this Court seeking direction to the respondent authorities concerned to reassess the amount of compensation entitled to them under the Act of 2013. The Writ Petitions were accordingly disposed of by directing he computation of the compensation in terms of the Act of 2013. It was further provided that upon such computation, the amount that was assessed be paid to the petitioners less the amount which had already been paid to them. 6. From the projection made by the petitioners in the present case and upon perusal of the materials available on record, it only appears that the case of the petitioners is squarely covered by the earlier decision of this Court. Accordingly, the respondent authorities, more particularly the respondent No. 6 is directed to make the assessment of compensation entitled to the petitioners in terms of the Act of 2013 and upon making such assessment and after making deduction of the amount already paid to the petitioners, the remaining balance, if any, shall be paid to the petitioners without delay. The entire exercise should be carried out within a period of four (4) months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this Order. Page No.# 4/4 7. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant