JUDGEMENT& ORDER : MRIDUL KUMAR KALITA, J. 1. Heard Mr. T. Lalzekima, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Mr. Samuel Vanlalhriata Chhangte, learned Additional Advocate General, appearing for the State respondents. 2. This writ petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, has been filed by the petitioners, namely Shri Lalhmangaihsanga and 16 others, praying for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus and/or any other appropriate writ directing the State respondents to conduct spot verification of the petitioners’ lands and, thereafter, to acquire the lands used for the construction of the Haulawng to Dawn Road (PMGSY Road) and to pay adequate compensation. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that all the petitioners are owners of land passes under period patta which are located at Haulawng to Dawn Road in Lunglei District, Mizoram. 3. The details of the land holding of the petitioners are shown in the table below: No. Name Nature of land holdings Period of validity 1. Lalhmangaihsanga Periodic Patta No. 208501/10/193 of 2005 31.03.2027 2. T. Zathanga Periodic Patta No. 208504/9/37 of 2005 21.12.2024 Periodic Patta No. 208504/10/39 of 2005 31.12.2024 Periodic Patta No. 208504/10/04 of 2005 31.12.2024 Periodic Patta No. 3 of 1978 31.12.2026 3. K. Lalhmingliana Periodic Patta No. 94 of 1978 31.12.2025 Periodic Patta No. 9 of 1978 31.03.2028 Periodic Patta No. 208504/10/294 of 2009 31.03.2028 4. Kapliana Periodic Patta No. G-322 of 1977 31.03.2026 5. Lalrinzuali Periodic Patta No 209203/10/219 of 2008 Tax paid for 2019-2020 6. P. Laldenga Periodic Patta No. 392 of 1978 31.12.2024 7. C. Rualthankhuma Periodic Patta No. 209203/10/178 of 2006 31.12.2024 8. Rokima Periodic Patta No. G-22 of 1995 31.03.2028 9. Zalawma Periodic Patta No. 91 of 1996 31.12.2021 10. T. Lalruata Periodic Patta No. G-25 of 1996 31.03.2026 11. Hranghmingthanga Periodic Patta No. 209203/10/06 of 2004 31.12.2025 12. K. Lalnunpuia Periodic Patta No. 209203/10/49 of 2005 31.03.2029 13. Dosangi Periodic Patta No. G-127 of 1977 10.07.2022 14. R. Lalrintluanga Periodic Patta No. 209203/10/15 of 2005 31.12.2025 15. Lianchhunga Periodic Patta No. 20 of 1996 30.12.2025 16. C. Kapkima Periodic Patta No. 208504/10/256 of 2007 31.12.2021 17. R. Lalnunsiami Periodic Patta No. 34 of 2005 31.12.2025 4. Mr. K. Lalnunpuia Periodic Patta No. 209203/10/49 of 2005 31.03.2029 13. Dosangi Periodic Patta No. G-127 of 1977 10.07.2022 14. R. Lalrintluanga Periodic Patta No. 209203/10/15 of 2005 31.12.2025 15. Lianchhunga Periodic Patta No. 20 of 1996 30.12.2025 16. C. Kapkima Periodic Patta No. 208504/10/256 of 2007 31.12.2021 17. R. Lalnunsiami Periodic Patta No. 34 of 2005 31.12.2025 4. Mr. T. Lalzekima, the learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the respondent No. 8 had issued a Notice Inviting Tender for construction of roads under the Pradhan Mantri Gram Sadak Yojana (PMGSY) in various districts of Mizoram, including the construction of the Haulawng to Dawn Road. He further submits that the lands of the petitioners were used for dumping loose earth/soil for the said construction without obtaining any prior permission from the petitioners, as a result of which their lands were adversely affected. However, the said lands have neither been acquired by the State respondents nor has any compensation been paid to the petitioners. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the actions of the State respondents are in violation of Articles 14 and 300A of the Constitution of India. He has submitted that Article 300A of the Constitution of India provides that “no person shall be deprived of his property save by authority of law”. He submits that, in the present case, the petitioners’ lands were used for the construction of the aforesaid PMGSY road without payment of due compensation to them, therefore, he submits that the State respondents may be directed to conduct a spot verification to ascertain whether the lands of the petitioners have been affected due to the construction of the Haulawng to Dawn Road under the PMGSY scheme and, if so found, to initiate the process for grant of adequate compensation in accordance with law. 6. Learned Additional Advocate General, Mr. Samuel VanlalhriataChhangte, has submitted that the land used for the construction of the Haulawng to Dawn Road had been voluntarily donated by the respective landowners. However, he further submits that land donation agreements could be traced only in respect of petitioner Nos. 4 and 17, and that no such land donation agreements could be traced out in respect of the other petitioners. 7. However, he further submits that land donation agreements could be traced only in respect of petitioner Nos. 4 and 17, and that no such land donation agreements could be traced out in respect of the other petitioners. 7. The learned Additional Advocate General, however, has fairly submitted that the State respondents were not averse to the petitioners’ prayer for seeking spot verification to ascertain whether the lands belonging to the petitioners had been affected due to the construction of the Haulawng to Dawn Road under the PMGSY scheme. He further submits that the payment of compensation, if any, would be subject to the petitioners being in possession of valid Periodic Pattas. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioners, in response to the submissions made by the learned Additional Advocate General, submitted that the mode of transfer of land by way of an affidavit or an unregistered agreement is not recognised by law, as such a mode of transfer is neither recognised under the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 nor under the Mizoram Land Revenue Act, 2013. He submitted that Section 100 of the Mizoram Land Revenue Act, 2013 mandates that all valid transfers of land shall be compulsorily registered within the State in accordance with the provisions of the Indian Registration Act. 9. In the instant case, the affidavits and agreements relied upon by the State respondents are unregistered documents and, therefore, have no legal validity. He has further submitted that the affidavit for land donation referred to by the State respondents, stated to have been executed by petitioner No. 4, even if taken at face value, pertains to a different land pass. According to him, petitioner No. 4 is aggrieved by non- payment of compensation in respect of land covered under Periodic Patta No. 322 of 1977, whereas the affidavit annexed by the State respondents in their affidavit-in-opposition pertains to land under Land Pass No.13/1996, hence, the same is of no help to the State respondents. 10. He has further submitted that, in respect of petitioner No. 17, the affidavit relied upon by the State respondents bears the signature of one R. Lalnunsiama, who appears to be a male person, whereas the name of the petitioner No. 17, is R. Lalnunsiami. Accordingly, he has submitted that the said affidavit/agreement also do not come to the aid of the State respondents. 11. Accordingly, he has submitted that the said affidavit/agreement also do not come to the aid of the State respondents. 11. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for both sides and have gone through the materials on record. 12. Apparently, it appears that the affidavits/agreements of land donation annexed by the state respondent in their affidavit-in-opposition do not pertain to the any of the present petitioner in respect of the land over which they are claiming compensation. 13. As submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners, with regard to petitioner No. 17, it appears that although the name of the petitioner is R. Lalnunsiami, the affidavit of land donation/Memorandum of Understanding is shown to have been signed by one R. Lalnunsiama. Moreover, the affidavit/Memorandum of Understanding in respect of petitioner No. 4 also appears to be in connection with land covered under Land Pass No. 13 of 1996, whereas, the said petitioner is claiming compensation in respect of land covered under Periodic Patta No. 322 of 1977, which is a different plot of land. 14. Further, in respect of the other petitioners, the State respondents have not been able to produce any document showing donation of their land for the construction of the Haulawng to Dawn Road. If the lands of the petitioners are found to have been utilised for the construction of the aforesaid road, they would be entitled to due compensation for such utilisation, as under Article 300A of the Constitution of India no person can be deprived of his property save by authority of law. 15. In view of the fair submission made by the learned Additional Advocate General that the State respondents have no objection to the prayer for spot verification of the petitioners’ lands to ascertain whether the same have been utilised for the construction of the Haulawng to Dawn Road, this writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the State respondents to conduct spot verification of the lands of the petitioners to ascertain whether the said lands have, in any manner, been utilised for the purpose of construction of the Haulawng to Dawn Road, within a period of three (3) months from the date of this order. 16. During such spot verification, the petitioners and/or their authorised representatives shall also remain present. 16. During such spot verification, the petitioners and/or their authorised representatives shall also remain present. If, upon such spot verification, it is found that the petitioners’ lands have been utilised for the construction of the Haulawng to Dawn Road, the State respondents shall take appropriate steps for payment of due compensation to the petitioners in accordance with the prevailing law. 17. With the above observations, this writ petition is disposed of.