Page No.# 1/43 GAHC020002232025 2026:GAU-NL:345-DB THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) KOHIMA BENCH Case No. : WA/7/2025 STATE OF NAGALAND AND 3 ORS REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY GOVERNMENT OF NAGALAND KOHIMA, NAGALAND. 2: THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF LAND REVENUE AND RECORDS GOVERNMENT OF NAGALAND KOHIMA NAGALAND. 3: THE CHIEF ENGINEER PWD (NATIONAL HIGHWAYS) GOVERNMENT OF NAGALAND KOHIMA NAGALAND. 4: THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER KOHIMA NAGALAND VERSUS MR. MEDOSELHOU KERETSU AND 33 ORS SON OF LATE SEIVI KERETSU D KHEL, KOHIMA VILLAGE DISTRICT, KOHIMA, NAGALAND. 2:MR. T ABAO KIRE D KHEL KOHIMA VILLAGE DISTRICT KOHIMA Page No.# 2/43 NAGALAND. 3:MR. RAZOUPHELIE KIRE D KHEL KOHIMA VILLAGE DISTRICT KOHIMA NAGALAND. 4:MR. VILASELIE KERETSU D KHEL KOHIMA VILLAGE DISTRICT KOHIMA NAGALAND. 5:MR. ZAYIEKIETUO KIRE D KHEL KOHIMA VILLAGE DISTRICT KOHIMA NAGALAND. 6:MR. POTHITA PHESAP D KHEL KOHIMA VILLAGE DISTRICT KOHIMA NAGALAND. 7:MR. SELIEHU KIRE D KHEL KOHIMA VILLAGE KOHIMA NAGALAND. 8:MR. KETUONEI KIRE D KHEL KOHIMA VILLAGE KOHIMA NAGALAND. 9:MR. THEYIESITUO KUOTSU D KHEL KOHIMA VILLAGE KOHIMA NAGALAND. Page No.# 3/43 10:DR. VIKETUOLIE PIENYU D KHEL KOHIMA VILLAGE KOHIMA NAGALAND. 11:MR. RUOKUOTUOLIE SORHIE R/O BAYAVU HILL KOHIMA NAGALAND 12:MR. RHEIZEZOLIE PIENYU D KHEL KOHIMA VILLAGE KOHIMA NAGALAND. 13:MR. KHRIEKUOLIE SACHU D KHEL KOHIMA VILLAGE KOHIMA NAGALAND. 14:MR. ADIBOU SACHU D KHEL KOHIMA VILLAGE KOHIMA NAGALAND. 15:MRS. ZENEISEIU KIRE R/O KITSUBOZOU KOHIMA NAGALAND. 16:DR. KIKRUKUOLIE KIRE D KHEL KOHIMA VILLAGE KOHIMA NAGALAND. 17:MR. MOSELIE KUOTSU D KHEL KOHIMA VILLAGE KOHIMA NAGALAND. 18:MR. KHRIEKHETUO KIRE Page No.# 4/43 D KHEL KOHIMA VILLAGE KOHIMA NAGALAND. 19:MR. KENEILETUO KIRE D KHEL KOHIMA VILLAGE KOHIMA NAGALAND. 20:MR. SIETUO KIRE D KHEL KOHIMA VILLAGE KOHIMA NAGALAND. 21:MR. ZETSEILIE KIRE R/O DAKLANE KOHIMA NAGALAND. 22:MR. THEPFULAKUO SACHU D KHEL KOHIMA VILLAGE KOHIMA NAGALAND. 23:MR. KHRIEZOTUO SACHU D KHEL KOHIMA VILLAGE KOHIMA NAGALAND. 24:MR. LHOUKHRIETUO KHEZHIE D KHEL KOHIMA VILLAGE KOHIMA NAGALAND. 25:MR. KEKHRIELEZO KIRE D KHEL KOHIMA VILLAGE KOHIMA NAGALAND. 26:MR. VATSUMVU KIREKHA D KHEL KOHIMA VILLAGE Page No.# 5/43 KOHIMA NAGALAND. 27:MR. ZIEBOU KIRE D KHEL KOHIMA VILLAGE KOHIMA NAGALAND. 28:MR. KHRIEZOTUOLIE KIRE D KHEL KOHIMA VILLAGE KOHIMA NAGALAND. 29:MR. KESOSIELIE SACHU D KHEL KOHIMA VILLAGE KOHIMA NAGALAND. 30:MR. THEPFUNGUNYU YIESE D KHEL KOHIMA VILLAGE KOHIMA NAGALAND. 31:MR. DZIESETUONYU KIRE D KHEL KOHIMA VILLAGE KOHIMA NAGALAND. 32:THE UNION OF INDIA THROUGH THE SECRETARY MINISTRY OF ROAD TRANSPORT AND HIGHWAYS GOVERNMENT OF INDIA TRANSPORT BHAVAN 1. PARLIAMENT STREET NEW DELHI 110001. 33:THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR (P) NATIONAL HIGHWAYS AND INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LIMITED R/O KOHIMA PWD REST HOUSE PWD COLONY Page No.# 6/43 KOHIMA NAGALAND. 34:THE CHAIRMAN DAPFHUTSUMIA COUNCIL KOHIMA VILLAGE NAGALAND REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMA Advocate for the Petitioner : GOVT ADV NL, Advocate for the Respondent : A. ZHIMOMI, N. MOZHUI,K. KIRE,ESTHER,G KAMEI,LHOUSINO,NEITSEIZONUO SOLO,VITO K SHOHE Linked Case : WA/6/2025 STATE OF NAGALAND AND 3 ORS REPRESENTRED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY KOHIMA NAGALAND 2: THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY/SECRETARY DEPT. OF LAND REVENUE AND RECORDS GOVT. OF NAGALAND KOHIMA NAGALAND 3: THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY/SECRETARY DEPT. OF WORKS AND HOUSING GOVT. OF NAGALAND KOHIMA NAGALAND 4: THE CHIEF ENGINEER PWD (NATIONAL HIGHWAYS) GOVT. OF NAGALAND KOHIMA NAGALAND 5: THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER KOHIMA NAGALAND VERSUS MR. KEVILETUO YIESE AND 63 ORS S/O LATE SATUO YIESE R/O SEIKHAZOU COLONY D KHEL Page No.# 7/43 KOHIMA NAGALAND KOHJIMA NAGALAND 2:MR ZELUOLIE KIRE S/O DUOLIE KIRE R/O SEIKHAZOU D KHEL KOHIMA VILLAGE KOHIMA NAGALAND 3:MR. KEZEVITUO KERETSU S/O LATE THEPFULE-U D KHEL KOHIMA VILLAGE KOHIMA NAGALAND 4:MR. RUOKUOSATO KERETSU S/O KONHE KERETSU D KHEL KOHIMA VILLAGE KOHIMA NAGALAND 5:MR. KHRIESAKUOLIE KIRE S/O LATE ZELHOULIE KIRE D KHEL KOHIMA VILLAGE KOHIMA NAGALAND 6:MR. NEILAZETUO KIRE S/O LATE KELUOKIELIE KIRE R/O SEIKHAZOU COLONY D KHEL KOHIMA VILLAGE KOHIMA NAGALAND 7:MR KENEILETUO KIRE S/O LATE NEILASAKUOLIE KIRE R/O LOWER SEIKHAZOU COLONY D KHEL KOHIMA VILLAGE KOHIMA NAGALAND 8:MR. LHOULABEITUO KHEZHIE S/O LATE M. ZELHOULIE KHEZHIE D KHEL KOHIMA VILLAGE KOHIMA NAGALAND Page No.# 8/43 9:MR. MESEKHRIETUO KHEZHIE S/O LATE AVIU KHEZGIE D KHEL KOHIMA VILLAGE KOHIMA NAGALAND 10:MR. VIBEIZOTUO KEDITSU S/O LATE VITSU KEDITSU D KHEL KOHIMA VILLAGE KOHIMA NAGALAND 11:MR. PEKRUVOTSO KIRE S/O LATE VILHOUTSO KIRE R/O SEIKHAZOU COLONY D KHEL KOHIMA VILLAGE KOHIMA NAGALAND 12:MR. KEDUONEIU SACHU S/O LATE B.KHRIEZOTUO SACHU D KHEL KOHIMA VILLAGE KOHIMA NAGALAND 13:MR DIETHOSELHOU SACHU S/O LATED SACHU D KHEL KOHIMA VILLAGE KOHIMA NAGALAND 14:ER. V NEIBA PIENYU S/O LATE KETSEIU PEINYU D KHEL KOHIMA VILLAGE KOHIMA NAGALAND 15:MR RUOKUOVI KEDITSU S/O LATE NEILASAKUOLIE KIRE R/O SEIKHAZOU COLONY D KHEL KOHIMA VILLAGE KOHIMA NAGALAND 16:MR KENEILHOULIE KEDITSU S/O LATE NEINGULIE KEDITSU D KHEL KOHIMA VILLAGE Page No.# 9/43 KOHIMA NAGALAND 17:MR. KO-O KEDITSU S/O LATE RHICHA R/O SEIKHAZOU COLONY D KHEL KOHIMA VILLAGE KOHIMA NAGALAND 18:MR METSEI PIENYU S/O LATE KEMIERHU PIENYU R/O SEIKHAZOU COLONY D KHEL KOHIMA VILLAGE KOHIMA NAGALAND 19:PIENYU CLAN REPRESENTED BY MR. METSEI PIENYU S/O KEMIERHU R/O D KHEL KOHIMA VILLAGE KOHIMA NAGALAND 20:DR. LHOUTSOULIE KUOTSU S/O LATE KUOLHOU R/O SEIKHAZOU COLONY D KHEL KOHIMA VILLAGE KOHIMA NAGALAND 21:MR VITHALIETUO KIRE S/O LATE VILHOUTSO KIRE R/O SEIKHAZOU COLONY D. KHEL KOHIMA VILLAGE KOHIMA NAGALAND 22:MR. RUOKUOSAZO SACHU R/O SEIKHAZOU COLONY D. KHEL KOHIMA VILLAGE KOHIMA NAGALAND 23:MT KIKRULHOULIE KHEZHIE R/O SEIKHAZOU COLONY D. KHEL KOHIMA VILLAGE KOHIMA NAGALAND Page No.# 10/43 24:MR. KEVINGUZHU KIRE R/O SEIKHAZOU COLONY D. KHEL KOHIMA VILLAGE KOHIMA NAGALAND 25:MR KEDIINGULIE KERETSU R/O LIRIE COLONY KOHIMA NAGALAND 26:MR. MEDOKIETUO KERETSU R/O D. KHEL KOHIMA VILLAGE KOHIMA NAGALAND 27:MR KERNEICHA PIENYU D. KHEL KOHIMA VILLAGE KOHIMA NAGALAND 28:MR. KELUONGUZO KERETSU D. KHEL KOHIMA VILLAGE KOHIMA NAGALAND 29:MR. CHUPFULHOU KIRE R/O D. KHEL KOHIMA VILLAGE KOHIMA NAGALAND 30:MS NEITSEITUNUO KERETSU R/O BASAZOU D. KHEL KOHIMA VILLAGE KOHIMA NAGALAND 31:MR R.BEILIE SORHIE R/O KITSUBOZOU KOHIMA NAGALAND 32:MR KEKHRIENGULIE KHEZHIE R/O D. KHEL KOHIMA VILLAGE KOHIMA NAGALAND 33:MR. METHANEILIE SUOKHRIE R/O L-KHEL Page No.# 11/43 KOHIMA NAGALAND NAGALAND KOHIMA 34:MR. NEISEVOTUO SORHIE R/O D. KHEL KOHIMA VILLAGE KOHIMA NAGALAND 35:DR. KEHOUSETUO KUOTSU R/O D. KHEL KOHIMA VILLAGE KOHIMA NAGALAND 36:MR. RHEIZEZOLIE PIENYU R/O LOWER CHANDMARI COLONY KOHIMA NAGALAND 37:MR. THEJASETU KERETSU R/O D. KHEL KOHIMA VILLAGE KOHIMA NAGALAND 38:MR. MIAZIEZOLIE KERETSU R/O D. KHEL KOHIMA VILLAGE KOHIMA NAGALAND 39:MR NEIKUOZO KIRE R/O NPHIECHA D. KHEL KOHIMA VILLAGE KOHIMA NAGALAND 40:MS NEIKETUOZONUO KHEZHIE R/O SEIKHAZOU COLONY D. KHEL KOHIMA VILLAGE KOHIMA NAGALAND 41:MR VIZOVOTUO KEDITSU R/O D. KHEL KOHIMA VILLAGE KOHIMA NAGALAND 42:MR RUOKUOVIU KIRE R/O D. KHEL KOHIMA VILLAGE KOHIMA NAGALAND Page No.# 12/43 43:KITSUOWHELIE KHEZHIE R/O D. KHEL KOHIMA VILLAGE KOHIMA NAGALAND 44:MR. ZAKIEVOU SACHU R/O KOHIMA VILLAGE KOHIMA NAGALAND 45:MR. VISANYU KIRE R/O MISSION COMPOUND KOHIMA NAGALAND 46:MR SIETUO KIRE R/O D. KHEL KOHIMA VILLAGE KOHIMA NAGALAND 47:MR ALBERT KIRE R/O D. KHEL KOHIMA VILLAGE KOHIMA NAGALAND 48:MR NEISAKUOLIE KIRE R/O D. KHEL KOHIMA VILLAGE KOHIMA NAGALAND 49:MR KETOUNEI KIRE R/O KIREPFURO CHIENUO D. KHEL KOHIMA VILLAGE KOHIMA NAGALAND 50:MR NEDOLEZO KIRE R/O FOREST COLONY NAGALAND KOHIMA 51:MR. VILASIELIE PIENYU R/O D. KHEL KOHIMA VILLAGE KOHIMA NAGALAND 52:MR. SECHALIE KHEZHIE R/O D. KHEL KOHIMA VILLAGE KOHIMA NAGALAND Page No.# 13/43 53:MR NEIKEYIE KHEZHIE R/O A.G. COLONY NAGALAND KOHIMA 54:MR ZHAVITO RHUTSO R/O D. KHEL KOHIMA VILLAGE KOHIMA NAGALAND 55:MR. SAVITUO KHEZHIE R/O D. KHEL KOHIMA VILLAGE KOHIMA NAGALAND 56:MR RUOKUOBEIZO KIRE R/O D. KHEL KOHIMA VILLAGE KOHIMA NAGALAND 57:MS VIKEZELIE KHEZHIE R/O SEIKHAZOU COLONY D. KHEL KOHIMA VILLAGE KOHIMA NAGALAND 58:MS KEVIRHEINUO KHEZHIE R/O D. KHEL KOHIMA VILLAGE KOHIMA NAGALAND 59:MS ZENEISEI-U KIRE R/O KITSUBOZOU COLONY NAGALAND KOHIMA 60:MR. VIPHRELIE KERETSU R/O D. KHEL KOHIMA VILLAGE KOHIMA NAGALAND 61:MR KIKRUKHRIELIE KIRE R/O D. KHEL KOHIMA VILLAGE KOHIMA NAGALAND 62:MR KEKHRIESETUO KIRE R/O D. KHEL KOHIMA VILLAGE Page No.# 14/43 KOHIMA NAGALAND 63:THE UNION OF INDIA THE SECRETARY MINISTRY OF ROAD TRANSPORT AND HIGHWAYS GOVT. OF INDIA TRANSPORT BHAWAN 1 PARLIAMENT STREET NEW DELHI-110001 64:THE NATIONAL HIGHWAYS AND INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD. MINISTRY OF ROAD TRANSPORT AND HIGHWAYS GOVT. OF INDIA 3RD FLOOR PTI BUILDING 4 PARLIAMENT STREET NEW DELHI-110001 REPRESENTED BY THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR (P). THE NATIONAL HIGHWAYS AND INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD. RO KOHIMA PWD COLONY KOHIMA NAGALAND ------------ Advocate for : GOVT ADV NL Advocate for : A. ZHIMOMI appearing for MR. KEVILETUO YIESE AND 63 ORS BEFORE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUSMITA PHUKAN KHAUND HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE YARENJUNGLA LONGKUMER Advocates for the appellants: Ms. V. Suokhrie, AAG. Advocate for the respondents: Mr. A. Zhimomi Mr. A. Chusi, SC, NHIDCl & UOI. Date on which judgment is reserved: 08.04.2026 Date of pronouncement of judgment : 05.06.2026 Whether the pronouncement is of the operative part of the judgment : Full judgment. Page No.# 15/43 Whether the full judgment has been pronounced : Yes JUDGMENT AND ORDER (CAV) (Susmita Phukan Khaund, J.) The appellants before this Court are the State of Nagaland, the Commissioner and Secretary, Department of Land Revenue and Records, Government of Nagaland, the Chief Engineer, PWD (National Highways), and the Deputy Commissioner, Kohima, Nagaland. 2. 34 respondents, mostly expropriated landowners are arrayed in the appeal WA No.07/2025, and the respondents No. 1 to 31 were the petitioners who preferred the WP(C)/216/2021, while the respondents No. 32 and 33 of this appeal were earlier arrayed as respondents No. 1 and 2 in WP(C)/216/2021. The respondent No. 34 is the Chairman-Dapfhutsumia Council, Kohima Village. WA/7/2025 is preferred against WP(C)/216/2021 and WA/6/2025 is directed against WP(C)/50/2022. Petitioners of WP(C)/50/2022 are arrayed as respondents No. 1 to 62 and the Union of India and the NHIDCL are arrayed as respondents No. 63 and 64 in WA/06/2025. 3. The appellants are aggrieved by the common judgment and order dated 29.11.2024 passed by the Single Bench in WP(C)/216/2021 and WP(C)/50/2022 and has prayed for quashing and setting aside the impugned judgment. Prayer has also been made to pass any other order/orders as this Court deems fit and appropriate. 4. The genesis of the case was that the Ministry of Road Transport and Highways Page No.# 16/43 (MoRTH for short) had taken a decision to upgrade and develop a road as a two lane road with paved shoulder and no-realignment. The road was divided into 6 (Six) packages and WA/07/2025 is relating to package-1, covering a length of approximately 15 kilometres of the Kohima-Jessami road, along the route of NH-29. The land owners along the route were to be paid compensation to damages caused to their property for construction of the said road only and not otherwise. This is the policy of the Government of Nagaland to pay only damages to property compensation on road projects where existing alignments are adopted for development. 5. The respondents/petitioners were highly aggrieved by the compensation apportioned and allocated to them under the peculiar Policy of the Government of Nagaland. The petitioners/respondents were also aggrieved by the policy applied by the NHIDCL to pay only damage compensation on road project on existing alignment and making the available land free of cost for two lane projects on existing alignments. The properties of the petitioners/respondents/land owners falling under the ROW, like structures, plantations etc. were assessed and after due verification, the damage compensation were estimated and prepared by the Revenue Department of the Government of Nagaland and thereafter, finally approved, as specified in the schedule of rates. Being aggrieved, the petitioners/respondents filed WP(C)/216/2021 and WP(C)/50/2022. 6. Heard learned Additional Advocate General Ms. V. Suokhrie for the appellants, learned counsel Mr. A. Zhimomi for the respondents/petitioners and Mr. A. Chusi, learned engaged counsel for the NHIDCL and the Union of India. Page No.# 17/43 7. It is contended by the learned Additional Advocate General for the appellants that although the Government of Nagaland has a policy to pay only the damage to property compensation on road project where existing alignments are developed for alignment, the learned Single Judge, arbitrarily omitted to look into and consider the policy of the Government, and without determining anything with regard to the relevant matters, erroneously held that the writ petitioners are entitled to just and fair compensation under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (the Act of 2013 for short). 8. Learned Additional Advocate General Ms. V. Suokhrie laid stress in her argument that Clause 1, sub-clause (a) (iv) of the Article 371A of the Constitution of India, provides special provision for the State of Nagaland which reads as under :- “371A. Special provision with respect to the State of Nagaland- (1) Notwithstanding anything in this Constitution-…… (a) No Act of Parliament in respect of - ..(iv) 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 decides.” 9. Thus, there is a bar by virtue of Article 371A, on any Act passed by the Parliament in the State of Nagaland, unless the same is adopted by the Assembly, by a resolution. 10. Learned Additional Advocate General for the appellants laid stress in her argument that the Act of 2013 has not been adopted by the Legislative Assembly of Nagaland till date. The State of Nagaland has its own Act known as the Nagaland Land Page No.# 18/43 (Requisition and Acquisition) Act, 1965 (The Act of 1965 for short). Therefore, any land acquisition and payment of compensation is to be made as per the said Act and not otherwise. Thus, the compensation was rightly assessed and allocated to the land owners. 11. It is further contended that even the petitioners have admitted that the acquisition system is peculiar to the Government of Nagaland. In WP(C)/216/2021, it is clearly reflected at paragraph 11 as admitted by the petitioners that - “considering the peculiar land holding system in the State, it has been the practice to obtain No Objection Certificates (NOC) from the Village Councils of the villages on whose lands, developmental activities are proposed. An NOC, per se, simply conveys the decision of the Village Council to allow developmental activities to be undertaken on its lands.” 12. It is further contended by the learned Additional Advocate General that the State of Nagaland has its own enactment with regard to the acquisition of land and the enactment is the Act of 1965. 13. It is further averred that the execution of the contract (Package-1) has recently commenced and the earth cutting/formation has begun and the respondents/petitioners’ land have effectively been taken over for construction of the road project. Apart from the petitioners, the other villagers and the land owners have not in any way obstructed the execution of the said contract and they have accepted “damage compensation”. Only the petitioners have approached this Court whereas, similarly situated land owners have accepted the compensation. The learned Single Judge has ignored the bar under Article 371A of the Constitution, and the fact that the Page No.# 19/43 Act of 1965 is in force and the fact that the State has not adopted the Act of 2013, and has erred by relying on the decision of this Court in Kejanglwa Village vs. State of Nagaland and Ors, reported in 2022 (3) GLT 632, which has no binding effect as the decision has to be held as per incuriam. 14. It is further contended that the learned Single Judge has misconstrued that the Act of 1965 has been replaced by the Act of 2013. It was erroneously held that the Land Acquisition Act of 1894 (the Act of 1894 for short) was applicable in the State of Nagaland and Mokokchung districts before 01.12.1963 and Section 11(2) of the Act of 1965 stipulates that the compensation has to be determined under Section 11(1) of the Act. It was erroneously held that the manner of inquiry and award by the Collector as stipulated in Section 11 of the Act of 1894 has become a part of the Act of 1965, and that the Act of 1965 has been replaced by the Act of 2013. The learned Single Judge has misconstrued that by virtue of incorporation of Section 11 of the Act of 1894 to the Act of 1965, the manner of inquiry and the award by the Collector as stipulated in Section 11 of the Act of 1894 becomes part of the Act of 1965 and the Act of 1965 has been replaced by the Act of 2013. It is true that the concerned roads are the projects of NHIDCL, but the land owners are to be compensated in terms of the Act of 1965 and not under the Act of 2013. 15. Learned Additional Advocate General has drawn the attention of this Court to the minutes of the meeting held on 20.11.2018 at 1:00 PM in the Conference Hall of the Chief Secretary in connection with the work of the “Kohima-Jessami Road (NH-29)”. The decision of the meeting at point No. 3 was that “No land acquisition compensation Page No.# 20/43 will be paid. Only damage to property compensation will be paid.” 16. The learned Single Judge did not interfere with the decision of the meeting relating to Kohima-Jessami road despite the fact that the petitioners have impugned the decision that no land acquisition compensation will be paid. It is also contended that despite the fact that the petitioners have impugned the DO. No. CSO/W&H/GEN- 1/2020 dated Kohima, the 6th August, 2020, the learned Single Judge had not interfered with this letter dated 06.08.2020. This letter also advocates procurement of land free of cost for 2 (Two) lane projects in Nagaland, unlike other states, with an exception to greenfield projects in Nagaland. 17. It is further contended that the Kohima-Jessami Road is an existing road which was declared as National Highway in 2000 and for its upgradation, the MoRTH has taken a decision to develop the road as a 2 (two) lane road with paved shoulder and no-realignment. The learned Single Judge arbitrarily omitted to look into and consider the policy of the Government and without determining anything with regard to the relevant matters while passing the impugned judgment, has erroneously held that the writ petitioners are entitled to just and fair compensation under the Act of 2013, despite the fact that the Act of 2013 was not adopted as per Article 371A of the Constitution. 18. It is further contended that it is unambiguously clear that the bar under the constitutional provisions from the application of the Act of Parliament relating to transfer of land and its resources provided under Article 371A has an overriding effect. The learned Single Judge ought to have acknowledged that the decision relied on by Page No.# 21/43 the writ petitioners in Kenjanglwa Village (supra) with regard to the applicability of the Act of 2013 relating to all acquisitions made under the provisions of Act of 1965 is not based on sound principles of law, whereas the decision of this Court in Repasosang (Ao) vs. State of Nagaland and Ors. reported in 2024 (1) GLT 750 is the correct postulation of law with regard to the non-applicability of the Act of 2013. 19. It is further contended that the learned Single Judge while considering the writ petition, ought to have taken into account that the Court while exercising its jurisdiction under Article 226, no mandamus can be issued to the State Government to act contrary to law. However, the directions passed by the learned Single Judge through the common judgment and order dated 29.11.2024 is irrational, arbitrary, contrary to the Constitution and is therefore, liable to be set aside and quashed. 20. Learned Additional Advocate General has drawn the attention of this Court to Section 11 of the Act of 1965, which reads : “Compensation. – 11. (1) Subject to the provision of sub-section (2) whenever any land is acquired under section 6 or section 9 there shall be paid compensation the amonnt of which shall be determined by the Collector. In determining the amount of compensation the Collector shall take into consideration the market value of the land for a period of five years preceding the date of publication of the notice under sub-section (1) of section 6 where the land is acquired under the said section and where the land is acquired under section 9 from the date of passing the order under sub-section (1) of the said section, and the amount of compensation payable shall be on the basis of the average market value so arrived at: Provided that where any building is acquired under section 6, the Page No.# 22/43 compensation shall be payable at the market value of the building on the date of publication of the notice under sub-section (1) thereof: "[Provided further that in addition to the market value of the land or building, as above provided, the Collector shall in every case award a sum 15% of such market value, in consideration of the compulsory nature of the acquisition]". (2) When the compensation has been determined under sub-section (1), the Collector shall make an award in accordance with the principles set out in section 11 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 [Act 1 of 1894].” 21. It is further submitted that because of incorporation, it is clear from Section 11 that this is a legislation by incorporation and not a legislation by reference, which has also been clearly mentioned in paragraphs 9, 10 and 11 of the decision of this Court in Kenjanglwa Village (supra), but the learned Single Bench has misconstrued and held that instead of the Act of 1965, the Act of 2013 shall prevail. It is further reiterated that this State has not adopted the National Highways Act, 1956 (NH Act of 1956 for short) and the learned Additional Advocate General has drawn the attention of this Court to Volume-1 (Schedule V, Act-48, Page-478) of the Nagaland Code relating to the adaptation of laws by the State of Nagaland, and it is amply clear that the National Highways Act of 1956 is in force proprio-vigore in Tuensang district only, and not in any other districts of Nagaland. The NH Act had incorporated provisions for land acquisition only in the year 1997 and thereby in the State of Nagaland, apart from Tuensang district, the Act of 1965 i.e. the Local Act will apply for acquisition of land. 22. It is further submitted that as per Schedule 7 of the Constitution, the acquisition and requisition of property is under the Concurrent list, which implies that both the Page No.# 23/43 Central and the State has power for acquisition and requisition of land. When there is a bar under Article 371A of the Constitution, the Act of 2013 has to be adopted by the Nagaland Legislature through a resolution. 23. It is further submitted that as per Article 254, Clause 2 of the Constitution, relating to inconsistency between laws made by the Parliament and laws made by the Legislature of States, it is clear that :- Where a law made by the Legislature of the State with respect to one of the matters enumerated in the Concurrent list, if repugnant to the provisions of an earlier law made by the Parliament or an existing law with respect to that matter, then the law so made by the State Legislature, shall if it has been reserved for consideration of the President has received the President’s assent, shall remain in force in the State. The Act of 1965 has indeed received the assent of the President and thereby the common judgment and order is liable to be set aside and quashed, moreso, when the Single Bench did not interfere with the policy of the Government. 24. In addition to the argument submitted in connection with WA/7/2025, Ms. V. Shukrie has also submitted that WA/6/2025 is relating to the common judgment and order, also in connection with WP(C) No. 50/2022. It is also submitted that this appeal is basically related to the greenfield projects and package-III and IV of the NHIDCL 2 (Two) lane projects on Kohima Bypass road passing through the land of Kohima village. It is a similar package where both land and damage compensation was provided to the land owners after the land was acquired under the Act of 1965. 25. The remaining part of the argument forwarded on behalf of the appellants will Page No.# 24/43 be discussed at the appropriate stage. 26. Learned counsel. Mr. A. Zhimomi has raised serious objection against the arguments forwarded on behalf of the appellants. The learned counsel for the respondents/petitioners has drawn the attention of this Court to the list of “Central Acts in force in erstwhile Naga Hills, Tuensang area immediately before December 1, 1963, (from the year 1874 to 1919)” in relation to the Act-1 of the Land Acquisition Act of 1894 (Act of 1894 for short) which shows that the old act of 1894 was enforced in Kohima and Mokokchong districts only, proprio vigore, meaning the entire 1894 Act, was adopted and enforced in Kohima and Mokokchung districts (Nagaland Code Volume – 1, page – 436, vide adaptation of laws in Nagaland). 27. Under Schedule-V in the list of “Central Acts in force in erstwhile Naga Hills, Tuensang area immediately before 1966 (from 1950-57) Act”, although it is mentioned that the NH Act of 1956 was only in force in Tuensang District, this Court cannot be oblivious of the fact that the old Act of 1894 prevailed in the district of Kohima. As per the State of Nagaland Act of 1962, under Section 26, the continuance of existing laws and the adoption is clear, as Section 26(1)(a), indicates that "all laws in force, immediately before the appointed day in the Naga Hills-Tuensang area shall continue to be in force in the state of Nagaland until altered, repealed, or amended by a competent legislature or other competent authority”, meaning thereby, that the N.H. Act of 1956 is also applicable, negating the submission of the learned Additional A.G. The Act of 1965 and the Act of 1894 will apply as per Section 11 of the Act of 1965. Page No.# 25/43 28. It is further contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners/respondents that Section 33 of the Nagaland Town and Planning Act, 1966, denotes the procedure for acquisition of land, and reads "(i)" the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (1 of 1894) shall be applicable for acquisition of land under this Act and the compensation shall be computed under the provisions of the same Act.” This indicates incorporation of the Act by reference and adoption of the same by reference. 29. It is further submitted that in the 7th Schedule of the Constitution, Entry 23 of the Union List, indicates highways declared by or under law made by Parliament to be National Highways. Further, it is submitted that Entry 42 of the Concurrent List, includes the acquisition and requisition of property. Thereby, the submission of the learned Additional A.G., Ms.V. Sukhorie that the N.H. Act of 1956 being not applicable can be safely brushed aside. Article 254(1) of the Constitution of India determines the appropriate test when there are inconsistencies between laws made by Parliament and the laws made by legislatures of States, which reads:- If any provision of a law made by the legislature of a State is repugnant to any provision of a law made by Parliament which the Parliament is competent to enact, or to any provision of an existing law with respect to one of the matters enumerated in the concurrent list, then, subject to the provisions of clause (2), the law made by the Parliament, whether passed before or after the law made by the legislature of such State, or as the case may be, the existing law shall prevail and the law made by the legislature of the State shall, to the extent of the repugnancy, be void.” 30. It is further submitted that as the law made by the State does not provide for Page No.# 26/43 any compensation to the land acquired for the two lane project, the Act of 2013 shall prevail, as the Act of 1965 is less beneficial. The Act of 1965 is in relation to the Act of 1894, and the Act of 2013 has replaced the Act of 1894. However, the State has not adopted the Act of 2013, nor was any amendment made. Thus, the State Act is deemed to be repealed under the principle of "implied repeal" when the Act of 2013 came into force. It is further submitted that the poor and marginalized landowners who have been undercompensated are being prejudiced as no acquisition proceedings have progressed so far nor any suitable award has been assessed or allocated. It is further contended that the marginalized citizens are deprived from suitable and appropriate compensation due to the upgradation of two lane to four lane as the State insists on paying compensation only for damages, and not for the acquired land. 31. It is further contended that no notices were given to any of the landowners/petitioners/respondents. Notices were issued only to the Village Council but the Village Council are not the land owners. It is further contended that this appeal is not maintainable by the State as an appeal relating to National Highways ought to have been preferred by the NHIDCL and the Union of India, Thereby, the learned counsel, Mr. A. Zhimomi has prayed to dismiss the appeal as this appeal is not maintainable. 32. The learned counsel, Mr. A. Zhimomi has submitted that Article 371A in relation to the state of Nagaland is in Pari Materia with Article 371G in relation to the State of Mizoram. Sub-clause (iv) of Clause (a) of Article 371G relates to the special provisions with respect to the State of Mizoram which begins with a non-obstante clause stating Page No.# 27/43 that- “371G. Special provision with respect to the State of Mizoram. – Notwithstanding in this Constitution, – (a). no act of parliament in respect of – (iv) ownership and transfer of land, shall apply to the State of Mizoram unless the Legislative Assembly of the State of Mizoram by a resolution so decides : Provided that nothing in this clause shall apply to any Central Act in force in the Union Territory of Mizoram immediately before the commencement of the Constitution (Fifty-third Amendment) Act, 1986;” The learned counsel for the respondents has referred to a similar situation in the case of State of Mizoram & Ors. Vs. Sh. R. Lalthanzauva & Ors (2024 SCC Online GAU 1871). 33. Section 2 of NH Act of 1956 clearly states that this act shall extend to the whole of India. It is also contended that in this case, no notice was issued to the landowners. The landowners were not heard. No objections were invited from the landowners. The NOC given by the Village Council on behalf of the landowners cannot be held to be valid, as the landowners were not heard and as objections from the landowners were not invited. It is thus reiterated that the mandate of Section 3A, 3B, 3C and 3D of the Act of 1956, were not followed by the State or the Central Government. 34. The learned counsel, Mr. A. Zhimomi took us through the entire decision of this Court in Kejanglwa Village (Supra) and he stated that in the light of this decision, both the appeals, WA No. 6/2025 and WA No. 7/2025 may be dismissed as both the appeals are devoid of merits. It is further reiterated by the learned Page No.# 28/43 counsel for the petitioners/respondents that the recital in Para-11 of the appeal memo of WA No. 7/2025, that an NOC, per se, conveys the decision of the Village Council to allow developmental activities to be undertaken on its lands, cannot be accepted as the landowners were not heard and without hearing and issuance of notice, the decision of the State Authority to proceed with the acquisition of land without even compensating the land appears to be an arbitrary and a harsh decision. It is further stressed that the Village Councils are not the owners of the property. 35. The decision in Repasosang (AO) Vs. The State of Nagaland {2024 (1) GLT 750} as submitted by the learned Additional A.G. to be good law holds no water. The Article 254 of the Constitution was not considered and this decision is contrary to the decision of this court in the case of Kejanglwa Village (Supra). 36. To substantiate his stance in this respect, the learned counsel, Mr. A. Zhimomi, has relied on the decision of the Honorable Supreme Court in Naeem Bano @ Gaindo-Versus-Mohammad Rahees & Anr. in SLP(C) No. 16460 of 2023. The remaining part of the argument of Mr. A. Zhimomi will be discussed at the appropriate stage. 37. The learned engaged counsel for the NHIDCL, Mr. A. Chusi for respondent Nos. 63 and 64 in connection with WA No. 6/2025 and respondent Nos. 32 and 33 in connection with WA No. 7/2025, has submitted that the Act of 1965 has effect as per Article 371A of the Constitution. The N.H. Act of 1956 and the Act of 2013, were not Page No.# 29/43 adopted by the State Assembly and are not applicable and compensation can be awarded only in terms of the Act of 1965. The NOC issued by the Village Council are legally binding under the customary laws of Nagaland especially when the NOC is issued by the Village Council for developmental programs. Apart from the petitioners, similarly circumstanced landowners have already accepted the compensation calculated as per the Act of 1965. It is also submitted that Annexure-7 series of WA/7/2025 are the NOCs (page 262-277), Annexure-14 is relating to fixation of compensation and Annexures-15 & 16 are the Circular and notification of fixation of compensation (page 291-294). Annexure-17 is the Circular for appearance to receive compensation. 38. The Deputy Commissioner conducted the survey and assessed the compensation. It is further submitted that the NHIDCL has already deposited an amount of Rs. 16.28 crores in the joint account of the DC, Kohima, and GM(P) (Pfutsero) and Rs. 190.60 crores in the joint account of the DC, Phek and GM(P) (Pfutsero) for disbursement of compensation to the beneficiaries/affected land owners. Thus, the submission on behalf of the petitioners that no award has been allocated or assessed can be safely brushed aside. The compensation has been calculated under the statutory guidelines. 39. It is submitted by the learned engaged counsel Mr. A. Chusi for the NHIDCL and the Union of India that the acquisition notification was issued under section 9 (2) of the Act of 1965 relating to the package III and package IV of the Bypass Project. Annexure-7 of the writ appeal is the notification dated 01.02.2021. Annexure-8 is the Page No.# 30/43 circular dated 06.02.2021 relating to the information to be given to the land owners regarding the acquisition of land for the Bypass 2-1 Lane Road Project Package III and Package IV. It is further submitted that Annexure-13 is the information given to the land owners vide circular dated 03.12.2022. All the land owners including the petitioners of the WP(C)/50 of 2022 were informed through the circular dated 03.12.2022 that the land compensation for 2 lane Kohima-Bypass from Chainage km 32 + 000 to km 34 + 000 (package IV) shall be paid in the office of the Deputy Commissioner, Kohima from 07.12.2022 onwards. So, stating it is replied by Mr. A. Chusi that the allegation that notices were not issued relating to acquisition of the land for the development of the 2-lane road is not true. It is further submitted that the allegation that compensation was not paid to the land owners is not true. As the petitioners of WP(C)/216/2021 and 50/2022 have challenged the procedure adopted by the respondents to pay the compensation and as they have not appeared, the compensation could not be awarded to them whereas, similarly circumstanced land owners have already received the compensation as per the Act of 1965. 40. The learned counsel has denied violation under Article 300A as the land has been acquired for public purpose and in consonance with the Village Council. It is further submitted that the letter No. DO No. CSO/W & H/GEN-1/2020 dated Kohima, the 6th August, 2020, more particularly, Annexure-G of the WA 7/2025, has later been retracted but during initiation, this letter has been effected. 41. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the submissions at the bar. 42. The controversy in the appeals in a narrow compass is that whether the land Page No.# 31/43 owners are not entitled to compensation of their land and are only entitled to compensation of damages as per the Act of 1965. 43. Learned engaged counsel Mr. A. Chusi for the NHIDCL and the Union of India has relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in U.P. Avas Evam Vikas parishad-Versus-Jainul Islam and Another reported in (1998) 2 SCC 467 wherein it has been held that :- “17. A subsequent legislation often makes a reference to the earlier legislation so as to make the provisions of the earlier legislation applicable to matters covered by the later legislation. Such a legislation may either be (i) a referential legislation which merely contains a reference to or the citation of the provisions of the earlier statute; or (ii) a legislation by incorporation whereunder the provisions of the earlier legislation to which reference is made are incorporated into the later legislation by reference. If it is a referential legislation the provisions of the earlier legislation to which reference is made in the subsequent legislation would be applicable as it stands on the date of application of such earlier legislation to matters referred to in the subsequent legislation. In other words, any amendment made in the earlier legislation after the date of enactment of the subsequent legislation would also be applicable. But if it is a legislation by incorporation the rule of construction is that repeal of the earlier statute which is incorporated does not affect operation of the subsequent statute in which it has been incorporated. So also any amendment in the statute which has been so incorporated that is made after the date of incorporation of such statute does not affect the subsequent statute in which it is incorporated and the provisions of the statute which have been incorporated would remain the same as they were at the time of incorporation and the subsequent amendments are not to be read in the subsequent legislation. In the words of Lord Esher, M.R., the legal effect of such incorporation by reference "is to write those sections into the new Act just as if they had been actually written in it with the pen or printed in it, and, the moment you have those clauses in Page No.# 32/43 the later Act, you have no occasion to refer to the former Act at all". (See: Wood's Estate, Re,2 Ch D at p. 615.) As to whether a particular legislation falls in the category of referential legislation or legislation by incorporation depends upon the language used in the statute in which reference is made to the earlier legislation and other relevant circumstances. The legal position has been thus summed up by this Court in State of M.P. v. M.V. Narasimhan³: (SCR p. 14: SCC p. 385, para 15) "Where a subsequent Act incorporates provisions of a previous Act then the borrowed provisions become an integral and independent part of the subsequent Act and are totally unaffected by any repeal or amendment in the previous Act. This principle, however, will not apply in the following cases: (a) Where the subsequent Act and the previous Act are supplemental to each other; (b) where the two Acts are in pari materia; (c) where the amendment in the previous Act, if not imported into the subsequent Act also, would render the subsequent Act wholly unworkable and ineffectual; and (d) where the amendment of the previous Act, either expressly or by necessary intendment, applies the said provisions to the subsequent Act." 44. Reverting back to this case, learned Additional Advocate General Ms. V. Suokhrie has laid stress in her argument that the Act of 1965 is a legislation by incorporation and not a legislation by reference but the learned Single Bench has misconstrued and held that instead of the Act of 1965, the Act of 2013 shall prevail. The NH Act had incorporated the provisions for land acquisition only in the year 1997 and thereby, in the State of Nagaland, apart from Tuensang district, the Act of 1965 will apply for matters of land acquisition. As the legislation is by incorporation, it is thus clear from Page No.# 33/43 Section 11 that the Act of 1894 shall remain. 45. We find substance in the argument of the learned Additional A.G. The statutory language of Section 11 of the Act of 1965 depicts that the legislature of 1894 is by incorporation. 46. On the other hand, learned counsel for the writ petitioners, Mr. A. Zhimomi has relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Naeem Bano @ Gaindo-Versus- Mohammad Rahees & Anr. reported in 2024 Supreme (SC) 1209, in connection with SLP (C) No. 16460 of 2023, wherein vide order dated 22.11.2024, it has been held that :- “9.5 Thus, the subject "transfer of property other than agricultural land" is one which falls within the scope and ambit of Entry 6, List III as noted above and both the Parliament and the Legislatures have legislative competence to make laws on the said subject including enacting an amendment to any provision of the T.P. Act. If an amendment is made to a provision of T.P. Act such as Section 106 in the instant case, by a State Legislature and the mandate of sub-clause (2) of Article 254 is complied with by the State, then any inconsistency between the State law and the Parliamentary law would result in State law prevailing in the State. 9.6 In the instant case, it is noted that the Legislature of State of U.P. amended Section 106 by amendment dated notice 30.11.1954 by which the words "fifteen days” in Section 106 of the T.P. Act were substituted by "thirty days’ notice" and the substituted clause prevailed in the State of U.P. However, in view of the amendment made to Section 106 by the Parliament by Act 3 of 2003 with effect from 31.12.2002, the substitution in Section 106 made by the Legislature of the Page No.# 34/43 State of U.P. is impliedly repealed and Section 106 as amended with effect from 31.12.2002 by the Parliament, would apply. This is on the strength of the proviso to clause (2) of Article 254 of the Constitution. This position could be better understood by referring to Article 254 of the Constitution and the relevant judicial dicta on the said Article as discussed above. The proviso to clause (2) of Article 254 of the Constitution squarely applies in the instant case. 9.7 In the circumstance, we are of the opinion that the issue with regard to the validity of the notice dated 24.07.2015 in light of the inconsistency between the amendment made by the State Legislature of U.P. and the subsequent Parliamentary amendment to Section 106 of the T.P. Act can no longer be a point of controversy. Therefore, the High Court ought to have considered the case i.e. the tenant's revision petition, on its own merits and disposed of the same rather than awaiting the opinion of the larger Bench on a reference made. It is noted that the respondent(s)/tenant having been unsuccessful before two Courts has filed the petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.” 47. It is submitted that in the light of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Naeem Bano @ Gaindo (supra), both the appeals are liable to be dismissed. As per the proviso to Clause 2 to Article 254 of the Constitution, it is amply clear that the Act of 2013 shall prevail. The Act of 2013 is more beneficial than the Act of 1965. The marginalized land owners cannot be deprived of their rights over their land without being compensated for the same and the legislature in its wisdom has made provisions for compensation for land owners whose land have been taken over for developmental purposes and for the benefit of the public. 48. Indeed, this argument for the respondents/petitioners is well Page No.# 35/43 supported by the authority and carries significant weight. 49. It is further contended that the argument for the NHIDCL that notifications were published and the information was given to the land owners vide Annexure-8, can be discarded. 50. The learned counsel has emphasized that under Section 6(1) of the Act of 1965, where any land has been requisitioned under Section 3, the State Government may use or deal with it in such a 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 notices, the Government shall call upon the land owners to show cause why the land should not be acquired and after considering objection, if any, the owners may be given an opportunity to be heard and then, the State Government shall pass such order as it deems proper. 51. In this case, no notices were issued or notification was published in the Official Gazette. 52. The appellants have not disputed the argument of the learned counsel for the respondent that notices were issued only to the Village Council. Although it is submitted on behalf of the NHIDCL that in case of developmental projects the Village Page No.# 36/43 Council has the authority to issue the NOC, yet it is clear from Sections 3, 5, 6 and 7 of the Act of 1965 and Section 3A, 3B, 3C and 3D of the NH Act of 1956 that notices have to be issued to the landowners i.e. the person interested in the land. The learned counsel, Mr. A. Zimomi has drawn the attention of this Court to the decision of this Court in Neikozo Nusoh and 10 Ors in WP(c) No. 195/2024, wherein vide the order dated 24.03.2026, it has been held that :- “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. (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." Page No.# 37/43 (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." 53. It was further held by this Court in Neikozo Nusoh (supra) that the proviso to Section 6(1) of the Act of 1965 accords an opportunity to be given to the owner or any other person interested of being heard prior to acquisition of the land. It was further held that merely by way of certain undertakings or minutes or resolution adopted in the meetings, the land cannot vest upon the State. It is further submitted that the Kohima-Jessami road and the greenfield project pertains to upgradation of an already existing road, but not a project relating to construction of new roads and thus, the land owners are not entitled to compensation for land. It is further submitted that no objection can be entertained by private land owners on developmental projects. The NOC of the Village Council would suffice. This argument of the learned Additional Advocate General has been assailed by the learned counsel Mr. A. Zhimomi, who has stated that part of farm land, buildings etc. were assessed for damages and these are the movable properties standing over the land of the land owners. Albeit NOC of the Village Council would meet the requirements but the landowners if not heard would be against the law of the land. In this case on hand, the notification under Section 3A of Page No.# 38/43 the NH Act of 1956 is annexed at page-247 of the WA/7/2025. The names of the interested persons or the land owners have not been inserted in the format of the public notice and so is the public notice, available at page-248 of WA/7/2025. It appears that the disgruntled respondents are aggrieved as their opinion did not matter and the opinion was taken by the Village Council instead. 54. This Court finds itself in agreement with the decision rendered by the Single Bench in Neikozo Nusoh (supra). Indeed, merely by way of certain Undertakings or Minutes or Resolutions adopted in the meetings, the land cannot vest upon the State. No matter, the Village Council can issue No Objection certificate, but before issuing notice for acquisition of the land, the State Government ought to have called upon the owners of the land or any person interested in such land to show cause why the land should not be acquired, be it for developmental purposes. Thereafter, the question of the minutes of meeting dated 20.11.2018 referred to by the learned Additional AG becomes applicable. It would be apt to reiterate that the minutes of the meeting reflects that the land owners would receive only the compensation for damage to the property over the land. They would not receive any compensation for the land. It is also submitted by the learned counsel for the NHIDCL Mr. A. Chusi that the letter dated 06.08.2020 has been retracted, but during initiation, this letter has been effected. It would also be apt to reiterate that this letter is relating to a request by the Chief Secretary, Government of Nagaland to the NHIDCL to consider compensation for land for disagreeing land owners at par with neighbouring states, especially for the greenfield projects. This manifests that the land owners or persons interested over the land were not heard in accordance with law and as per provisions of the Act of 1965. Page No.# 39/43 55. We find force in the argument of the learned counsel for the respondents Mr. A. Zhimomi that the State Government cannot arrogate to itself the land from the land owners without hearing them. It is true that compensation cannot be forced down to the disgruntled landowners. The land was not considered to be compensated as compensation was only assessed for the properties over the land. In cases of such inconsistencies between the legislation of the Parliament and the State legislation, the judgment of the Supreme Court in Naeem Banu Alias Gaindo (supra) is relevant. Navigating the customary laws via Article 371A of the Constitution along with the submission of the petitioners/respondents, the landowners who are prejudiced for not being heard and in the light of the decision of the Supreme Court in Naeem Banu Alias Gaindo (supra), it appears that the respondents/petitioners are entitled to compensation for their land on the principles of implied repeal. 56. The learned counsel for the petitioners/respondents has argued that it is not the petitioners/respondents who have misinterpreted the law but, it is the appellants who have misinterpreted the law. The Act of 2013 is the latter Act and the Act of 1965 manifests a repugnancy. The latter Act of 2013 passed by the Parliament by the principle of ‘implied repeal’ is thus enforceable. In simple terms, the Act of 2013 which was passed by the Parliament comes into force as per proviso to Clause 2 of the Article 254 of the Constitution. Thus, the argument of the learned Additional Advocate General that there is no ambiguity, that the Parliament has not varied or amended or repealed the earlier Act of 1965 as per the proviso to Clause 2 of the Article 254 of the Constitution, holds no water. Page No.# 40/43 57. The decision of this Court in Sh. R. Lalthanzauva (supra) case is also relevant, wherein it has been held that :- “33. We have also compared the provisions of the Act of 2013 as well as the Mizoram Land Acquisition Act and find that both the Acts are on the same subject, i.e. acquisition and requisition of property, which is the subject matter enumerated in Entry 42 of List-III of Seventh Schedule of the Constitution of India. As a matter of fact, the Mizoram Land Acquisition Act is almost verbatim to the Act of 2013 with minor changes, such as number of Sections and missing of some of the provisions which relate to the Central Government only. 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.” 58. We agree with the submission of the learned counsel for the respondents/petitioners that the 371G qua the State of Mizoram is in pari materia with Article 371A qua the State of Nagaland, except for the fact that the Mizoram Land Page No.# 41/43 Acquisition Act has not received the assent of the President. 59. When the land owners are not heard and compensated in lieu of acquisition of their lands, inconsistencies between the act of the Parliament and the State legislature cannot be ruled out. Taking a cue from the decision of this Court in Sh. R. Lalthanzauva (supra) and in the light of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Naeem Banu Alias Gaindo (supra), this Court is hesitant to interfere with the orders impugned by the appellants. Even the letter dated 06.08.2020 vide No. D.O. No. CSO/W&H/GEN-1/2020 depicts that the Government has been mulling over to compensate the land owners in lieu of the land despite the fact that the letter has been retracted as submitted by the learned engaged counsel for the NHIDCL. This Court is however hesitant to decide the vires of the Act of 1965 at this stage. We do not disagree with the decision of the learned Single Bench in Repasosang (AO) (supra) wherein it has been held that:- “59. In view of the above discussion, this court is of the considered view that the RFCTLARR Act, 2013 would not be applicable in the State of Nagaland sans recourse to special provision enshrined under Article 371 A (a) (iv) of the Constitution of India and even though Section 1 (2) of the RFCTLARR Act, 2013, provides for extension of the Act to whole of the country, same would not have automatic applicable in the State of Nagaland.” 60. Reverting back to this case on hand, it is held that there is not even an iota of doubt that the Act of 2013 and the NH Act of 1956 has not been adopted by the State of Nagaland. There is no ambiguity that the aforementioned Acts have not been adopted by the State of Nagaland. Requisition and acquisition is determined in terms of the Act of 1965. The Act of 1965 is less beneficial. The land owners are not Page No.# 42/43 compensated for the land acquired by the State or by the National Highway. As the land owners are not compensated for the land, this inconsistency between the Act of the Parliament and the Act of State can be addressed under the principles of implied repeal, without declaring the law to be ultra-vires. Compensation only for properties over the land, sans compensation for land to the landowners cannot be forcefully imposed. 61. It is pertinent to reiterate that the petitioners/land owners were not heard, albeit NOCs were issued by the Village Council as is the procedure followed for developmental projects. The repugnancy between the Act of 1894 qua the Act of 2013 vis-à-vis the local Act of 1965 is apparent. The land owners are not compensated for the land. At this stage, it is not disputed that similarly circumstanced land owners have already accepted the compensation relating to the same projects of Kohima-Jessami road. 62. It is also submitted that the execution of the contract (Package-1) has recently commenced and the earth cutting/formation has begun. The acquired land of the petitioners have effectively been taken over for construction of the road projects. It is also submitted that the villagers as well as the other land owners have not in any way obstructed the execution of the contract. The disgruntled land owners have alleged that they have been prejudiced by the insufficient compensation allocated to them as they have not been compensated in lieu of their land. Their grievances of being under compensated cannot be ignored, moreso, when repugnancy is apparent. 63. The Single Bench in WP(C)/216/2021 and WP(C)/50/2022 have directed the Page No.# 43/43 appellants and NHIDCL to take steps so that the land and owners, whose lands have been acquired for construction of the roads, would get just and fair compensation. 64. It would be apt to mention at this juncture that no executable order or direction is required to be passed. By navigating the Article 371A of the Constitution and relying on the principle of implied repeal in the case of Naeem Bano @ Gaindo (supra) and taking a cue from the decision of this Court in Sh. R. Lalthanzauva (supra), the orders of the Single Bench in WP(C)/216/2021 and WP(C)/50/2022, directing the appellants and the NHIDCL to take steps so that the land owners, whose land have been acquired for construction of the Kohima-Jessami road would get just and fair compensation, are upheld. However, it is further clarified that the observation of the Single Bench in the aforementioned writ petitions that the Act of 1965 has been replaced by the Act of 2013, is not upheld. 65. In terms of the above observation, both the appeals, WA/7/2025 and WA/6/2025, are disposed of. JUDGE JUDGE Comparing Assistant