Page No.# 1/13 GAHC030001722026 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Arb.A./10/2026 Sh. Lalnuntluanga and 3 Ors. S/o Lalthlengliana, R/o Bilkhawthlir, Kolasib District, Mizoram - 7960912: Sh. Lalhmingchhuanga 3: Smt. K. Lalremruati 4: Smt. Ramropui VERSUS The Competent Authority for Land Acquisition (CALA) and Anr. Kolasib District, Deputy Commissioner's Office, Project Veng, Kolasib, Mizoram, 796081 2:The Managing Directo Advocate for the Petitioner : Mr. Lalsawirema Advocate for the Respondent : BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MICHAEL ZOTHANKHUMA ORDER Date : 03-06-2026 Heard Mr. Lalthangmawia, learned counsel for the appellants, who submits Page No.# 2/13 that the present appeal is against the impugned Judgment & Award dated 27.01.2026 passed in Arbitration Petition No. 2/2023 by the Court of Addl. District & Session Judge, Aizawl Judicial District, Kolasib, by which the challenge to the Arbitral Award dated 14.08.2023, which rejected the claim of the appellants for payment of compensation for the value of their lands, has been dismissed. 2. The learned counsel for the appellants submits that the four appellants are owners of lands covered by Village Council passes, issued for agricultural purposes. For the purpose of construction of a four lane road along NH-360 (Vairengte – Sairang), the respondents issued a notification under Section 3A of the National Highways Act, 1956 (herein after referred to as “NH Act”) and thereafter, issued an Award under Section 3G of the NH Act. 3. The appellants were given compensation for their crops and trees on the lands covered by Village Council passes issued for agricultural purposes. However, compensation for the land, i.e., land value, was not given to the appellants. Being aggrieved in not being given compensation for the land, the appellants submitted an application for referring the matter to an Arbitrator under Section 3G (5) of the NH Act. The Arbitrator passed an Award dated 14.08.2023, by holding that it upheld the view of the respondent No. 1(CALA), who had held that in terms of Government of Mizoram notification LRR-A- Page No.# 3/13 1/88/Pt-1 dated 26.06.1989 declaring Bilkhawthlir as a Notified Town, the powers of the Village Council to allot land had been withdrawn. On the other hand, the Village Council passes of the appellants had been issued in the years 2003, 2016, 2017 & 2018. The Village Council pass of the appellant No. 2 had been issued on 22.02.2003 to one Lalchhankima and had been transferred to the appellant later. The learned Arbitrator also stated that traditionally rural lands in Mizoram have been maintained like community land wherein, Village Councils would allot land for a temporary period for Jhum calculation on annual basis, with no inbuilt enduring right. The learned Arbitrator also relied upon the Gauhati High Court judgment in LA. Appeal No. 3/2019, which held that in respect of other villages, land allotment by Village Councils under 1953 Act and 1956 Act was repealed in the year 2013. As such the learned Tribunal held that the appellants were not entitled to compensation for land value. 4. Being aggrieved by the same, the appellants put to challenge the Arbitral Award before the Addl. District & Session Judge, Aizawl Judicial District, Kolasib, vide Arbitration petition No. 2/2023. The learned Civil Court, vide Judgment & Order dated 27.01.2026, in para 21 of the said impugned Judgment & Order, held that non-payment of market value of land in respect of the appellants lands was not against the public policy of India, since the Village Council Passes which were issued for agricultural purposes, were issued by an incompetent authority. Page No.# 4/13 It also held that the impugned Arbitral Award dated 14.08.2023 was not perverse. However, the learned Civil Court remanded the matter back to the learned Arbitrator, to reconsider the matter afresh. 5. On considering the impugned Judgment & Order passed by the learned Civil Court, this Court fails to understand as to what should be decided by the learned Arbitrator, when the learned Civil Court has not found the Arbitral Award to be illegal or against public policy of India. Further, the learned Civil Court has held that it found no reason to interfere with the Arbitral Award or modify the impugned Arbitral Award. Para Nos. 21, 22, 24, 25 & 26 of the impugned Judgment & Order dated 27.01.2026 passed in Arbitration Petition No. 2/2023 by the learned Civil Court is reproduced herein below as follows: “21. In my considered view, non-payment of market value of land in respect of lands covered under Pass issued by Village Council in the present case is not against the public policy of India since the Passes in questions meant for agricultural purposes were issued by incompetent authority. Moreover, it is opined that the impugned Arbitral Order dated 14.08.2023 is not perverse due to merely the fact that the report submitted by the joint-spot verification team in respect of the land belonging to the petitioner No.1 was not accepted by the learned sole Arbitrator. It is opined that the impugned Order is not against the natural justice, not contrary to the substantive law and against the public policy of India. 22. Considering the observation made by this Court and by placing reliance upon the law that has been laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the cases (Supra), this Court finds no reason to interfere with the present case. It further finds no reason to modify the impugned Arbitral Order. 24. However, purely in the interest of justice, fair play and as per verbally prayed for by the parties, the impugned Arbitral Order/Award dated 14.08.2023 is remanded Page No.# 5/13 back to the learned sole Arbitrator, (MoRTH), Aizawl and is directed to re-consider as per law the matter afresh in presence of all the parties. 25. The parties are directed to appear before the learned sole Arbitrator, Aizawl within a period as may be fixed by the learned Arbitrator, Aizawl. 26. With this order, the present petition stands disposed of with no cost.” 6. As can be seen from the above, when the learned Civil Court has come to a finding that it does not find any reason to interfere with the Arbitral Award, there was no justification for remanding the matter back to the learned Arbitrator, to decide the matter afresh. It basically amounts to dismissal of the Application under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act, leaving no scope to the learned Arbitrator to pass any other Award on reconsideration of the matter, other than the Award already passed on 14.08.2023. 7. The appellant’s basic challenge to the impugned Judgment & Order is on the ground that the appellants are entitled to be given compensation for their land, in view of the fact that they have been allotted land by the Village Council covered by Village Council passes for agricultural purposes. Thus, they were owners of the lands. Further, the Village Council passes of the appellant Nos. 2, 3 & 4 had been approved for being converted into Periodic Pattas by the Government, vide letter dated 14.01.2022. 8. This Court is of the view that the approval given by the Government for converting the VC Garden Passes of the appellants Nos. 2, 3 & 4 on 14.01.2022, cannot have much relevance in the present case, inasmuch as, the notification Page No.# 6/13 under Section 3A of the NH Act has been issued on 21.05.2021 declaring the respodents intention to acquire the land of the appellants, i.e., prior to the approval given by the Government for regularizing and converting the Village Council Passes into Periodic Pattas. Further, no periodic pattas was issued to the appellants. 9. The facts of the case, as stated earlier is that the appellants have been allotted land on the basis of Village Council passes issued for agricultural purposes. While one pass was issued in the year 2003, the other Village Council passes were issued in the year 2016, 2017 and 2018. The Village Council pass issued in the year 2003 could have been issued only on the basis of the Lushai Hill’s District (House Site) Act, 1953, hereinafter referred to as 1953 Act, while the other three Village Council passes could have been issued only on the basis of the Mizoram (Land Revenue) Act, 2013 hereinafter referred to as 2013 Act, which repealed the 1953 Act. 10. Section 3 of the Lushai Hills District (House site) Act, 1953 is as follows:- “3. Allotment of sites: -1) Subject to the provisions of sub-section (2) of this section, a Village Council shall be competent to allot sites within its jurisdiction for residential and other non- agricultural purposes with the exception of shops and stalls which include hotels and other business houses of the same nature. Notwithstanding anything contained in this act, the Administrator shall have the power to Page No.# 7/13 intervene in all cases of disputes over any sites within the village, and the decision of the Administrator shall be final. Provided that the Administrator may, at any time by notification, declare that any village or a particular locality is a protected area where allotment of sites shall be done by Village Council only with the previous approval of the Administrator. 2) The Administrator or any person or body authorized in that behalf by the Administrator shall allot sites for residential and other non-agricultural purposes in Aizawl, Lunglei, Demagiri, Sairang, Kolasib, Champhai and N. Vanlaiphai and also sites for shops and stalls which may include hotels and other business houses of the like nature in places other than the said stations. 3) The Village Council, when site is allotted under sub-section (1) and the Administrator or any other person or body, authorized in that behalf by the Administrator when the site is allotted under sub-section (2) shall issue a patta and may incorporate therein in writing such conditions as may be reasonable in the interest of general public or a Scheduled Tribe. 4) The authority issuing the patta on being satisfied on proof that any such condition or conditions incorporated in the Patta have been violated may cancel the Patta. Provided that such authority instead of cancelling the Patta may impose a fine, when such authority is a Village Council, not exceeding Rs. 50/- and when the authority is the Administrator or any other person or body authorized in that behalf by the Administrator, not exceeding Rs. 100/- 5) No person shall occupy any site without obtaining a Patta from a competent authority as prescribed in sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) as the case may be 6) The Village Council when the site is allotted under sub-section (1) the Administrator or any other person or body authorized in that behalf by the Administrator when it is allotted under sub-section (2) may evict any person having in occupation of unauthorized site after service on such unauthorized occupant of a notice to vacate the site within a period of not less than 7 days. Page No.# 8/13 7) On failure of such unauthorized occupant to vacate the site within the time fixed in the notice Village Council or Administrator or any other person or body authorized by the Administrator in that behalf, may order for demolition of the building or impose a fine not exceeding Rs. 5/- per day for the unauthorized occupation after the service of the notice. 8) The order of the Administrator of a Village Council as the case may be, passed under clauses (6) and (7) above shall be deemed to be a decree of a competent civil court to which this Act applies." 11. Thus, from a reading of Section 3 of the 1953 Act, it is clear that a Village Council has the power to allot house sites for residential and other non- agricultural purposes within its jurisdiction. It cannot allot any pass for garden/agricultural purposes. Thus, only a Village Council house site pass would be a valid pass and acquisition of land covered by a Village Council House Site Pass would make the land owner entitled to payment of compensation for the land. If a Village Council pass is issued for garden/agricultural purposes, the same being an invalid pass, the holder of the same cannot claim any compensation for the land value, for the simple reason that he cannot be said to be the owner of the said land. The title to the said land would still vests with the Government. The 1953 Act was thereafter repealed by the Mizoram (Land Revenue) Act, 2013 herein referred to as the “2013 Act”, which came into effect on 02.05.2013. Section 39 of the 2013 Act provides that in a village where a site plan has been made, house sites may be allotted by the Village Council by Page No.# 9/13 giving a house pass, which should not exceed 1337.80 square meters or one bigha. There is no provision even in the 2013 Act, for allotment of land by a Village Council for garden or agricultural purposes. 12. Further, Section 27 of the 2013 Act provides that a pass holder shall have no right in the land held by him, beyond the rights of use and occupancy for such period and under such terms and conditions, as may be specified in the pass. The pass holder shall have no right of transfer, inheritance, or subletting beyond the period so specified in the pass. If there is no period specified in the pass for right of use and occupancy, the validity of the pass shall be deemed to be for a period not exceeding five years, unless the same is renewed. A reading of the 2013 Act also shows that the Village Council has no right to issue any land for purposes other than a house site, not exceeding one bigha. 13. The land laws that were/are applicable at the time of issuance of the Village Council passes of the appellants, shows that their Passes were invalid passes, inasmuch as, it is an undisputed fact that the passes were issued to the appellants for garden/agricultural purposes. Thus, the Village Council Garden Passes of the appellants being invalid and dehors the land laws of the State, no compensation for land (land value) can be given to the appellants. The appellants, as such, cannot be said to be the legal of bonafide owners of the Page No.# 10/13 lands covered by Village Council Passes issued for garden/agricultural purposes. 14. Sections 27 and 39 of the 2013 Act states as follows:- Section 27 Rights of a Pass-holder A Pass-holder shall have no right in the land held by him beyond the rights of use and occupancy for such period and under such terms and conditions as may be specified in the Pass and shall have no right of transfer, inheritance, or of sub-letting beyond the period so specified. Provided that where no period has been specified in the existing Pass, the validity of such Pass shall, unless renewed, be deemed to have continued as a valid Pass for a period not exceeding five years from the date of commencement of this Act. Section 39 Allotment of House-Sites (1) In the village where site plan have been done, house sites may be allotted by the Village Council by giving a House Pass. The area of House Pass per family to be allotted by the Village Council will not exceed 1337.80 sq.metre or 1 bigha. (2)In an area where settlement operation has been done, the competent Revenue Officer may, with prior sanction of the Government, allot house-sites by giving a House Pass having an area not exceeding 1337 square metre per family. Provided that the land document shall contain clear geographical description (including macro and micro mapping), distinguishable boundary description accompanied by boundary pillars and accurate measurement of the area duly recorded.” 15. In the case of People’s Right to Information and Development Implementation Society of Mizoram (PRISM) Vs. The State of Mizoram & Anr, WP(C) No. 5993/2014 (GAU), re-numbered as WP(C) no. 74/2016 Page No.# 11/13 (AB), the Division Bench of this court held that Section 3 of the 1953 Act gave power to the Village Council to allot sites within its jurisdiction, only for residential and other non-agricultural purposes. With respect to the question of allotment of agricultural land, the same is provided under the Mizo District (Agricultural Land) Act, 1963. The Village Councils do not have the power to allot land for garden/agricultural purposes under the Mizo District (Agricultural Land) Act, 1953. Thus, from a reading of the above judgments of this Court, it is quite clear that the appellants who are claiming compensation for land value on the basis of their invalid Village Council Garden Passes, are not entitled to the same, as the passes are invalid and/or void. 16. As the Village Council did not have the power to allot land for garden/agricultural purposes, the title to the land always remained with the Government. The appellants could not be said to be the owners of the land, as the right of ownership of the land was never transferred to the appellants. Accordingly, there is no infirmity with the decision of CALA (respondent No. 1) to deny payment of compensation to the appellants for the value of the land, which was up-held by the Arbitrator and the learned Civil Court. Further, there is no challenge to the Government of Mizoram Notification LRR-A-1/88/Pt-1 dated 26.06.1989 withdrawing the powers of the Village Council in Bilkhawthlir town, to allot land, as can be seen from Arbitral Award. Page No.# 12/13 17. For the reasons stated above, we do not find any ground to allow the prayer of the appellants for payment of compensation for the value of their lands. As the impugned Judgment & Award dated 27.01.2026, passed in Arbitration Petition No. 2/2023 by the Court of the Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Aizawl Judicial District, Kolasib has remanded the matter back to the learned Arbitrator to re-consider the matter as per law, despite having held that it did not find any infirmity with the Arbitral Award, this Court is of the view that the said direction passed in para 24 of the impugned judgment and order is a useless formality and totally unreasonable. This Court finds no infirmity in the decision of the learned Arbitrator and the learned Civil Court, except for para 24 & 25 of the impugned Judgment & Order dated 27.01.2026 passed in Arbitration Petition No. 2/2023. This Court thus finds that the provisions of Section 34/37 of the Arbitration are not attracted in the present appeal. Accordingly, para 24 & 25 of the impugned Judgment & Order dated 27.01.2026, passed in Arbitration Petition No. 2/2023 is accordingly set aside. 18. In view of the reasons stated above, the present arbitration appeal under Section 37 of the Arbitration Act is dismissed, as this Court does not find that the grounds taken for filing the present appeal comes within the provisions of Section 34 of the Arbitration Act, for challenging an Arbitral Award. Page No.# 13/13 19. Send back the records. JUDGE Comparing Assistant