Disposed

Z Zothansanga and 10 Ors. v. Lalramthanga and 14 Ors.

Gauhati HC11 Sept 2024Cont.Cas(C)/23/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Contempt petition alleging non-implementation of a writ court direction to initiate land acquisition for landowners affected by the KDZKT Road. Respondents produced the award dated via letter dated 15.11.2021 showing proceedings completed. The Court held the earlier order stood complied with and declined to examine the validity of the award date under the Mizoram Land Acquisition Act.

What the court decided

AI extract

Z Zothansanga and 10 Ors. Vs Lalramthanga and 14 Ors. — Contempt of Court | Gauhati HC (2024)

¶1

Page No.# 1/5

¶2

GAHC030000112018

¶3

THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)

¶4

Case No. : Cont.Cas(C)/23/2018

¶5

Z Zothansanga and 10 Ors Kawrthah, Mamit District 2: Lalremmawia

¶6

3: Lalchunglura Ralte

4: R Thankimi

5: Ralzidinga Ralte

6: B Lalrosanga

7: Lalthanpuii

8: Lalchunglura Ralte

9: Biakthansanga

10: Lalawi

VERSUS

Lalramthanga and 14 Ors Aizawl2:R Lalramnghaka Secy to Govt. of Mizoram LR and S Deptt.

¶16

Page No.# 2/5

¶17

3:Sawihlira

¶18

Secy to Govt. of Mizoram Finance Deptt

¶19

4:Vanlalngaihsaka DC Mamit

¶20

5:R Lalrintluanga CE PWD Roads

¶21

6:Vanlalmuana PWD Mizoram

¶22

7:P Lalnunsanga PWD Kawrthah

¶23

8:H L ROchungnunga Secy to Govt. of Mizoram PWD

¶24

9:Dr. Lalrozama DC Mami

¶25

Advocate for the Petitioner : Mr. T Lalzekima

¶26

Advocate for the Respondent : Ms Lalhmingthangi Fanai

¶27

Page No.# 3/5

¶28

BEFORE

¶29

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KAUSHIK GOSWAMI

¶30

12.09.2024

¶31

Heard Mr. Lalfakawma, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. B. Lalramenga, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 1, 3, 5, 8, 12 & 13.

¶32

This application is filed under Rule 9 of the Contempt of Court (Gauhati High Court) Rules, 1997 read with Section 11 & 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 and Article 215 of the Constitution of India bringing notice of the alleged non-implementation of the Judgment & Order dated 11.04.2018 passed by the Hon’ble Court in Review Petition No. 2/2018 alongwith WP(C) No. 123/2016.

¶33

The operating portion of the Order dated 10.07.2017 is reproduced hereunder for ready reference:-

¶34

“11. In the result, the writ petition is disposed with a direction to the State respondents to take a decision as to whether the land acquisition proceedings should be initiated and completed in terms of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 or by the Mizoram (Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation & Resettlement) Act, 2016 and its Amendment within a period of 1 (one) month from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this Order. The respondent No.2 i.e., the Commissioner and Secretary to the Government of Mizoram shall cause necessary process to ensure that the decision is taken by the State Government within the stipulated time as directed. Upon the decision being taken, the respondents shall proceed with the acquisition proceedings and complete the entire exercise within a period of 5 (five) months. It is also made clear that the State respondents would be at liberty to consider the case of other similarly situated land owners who are affected due to the construction and up-gradation of KDZKT Road. Liberty is also given to the State respondents to deduct the financial assistance already given to the petitioners and those similarly situated.”

¶35

Page No.# 4/5

¶36

It is submitted at the bar that the acquisition proceedings had been completed in terms of the aforesaid order.

¶37

In support of the same, Mrs. Mary L. Khiangte, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 15 has submitted a copy of the Award, which was forwarded to the Deputy Commissioner, Mamit District, Mamit by the Under Secretary to the Government of Mizoram, Land Revenue & Settlement Department by letter dated 15.11.2021.

¶38

A copy of the said Award alongwith the relevant correspondences handed over to the Court is kept on record and marked as “X”.

¶39

However, Mr. Lalfakawma, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that though in terms of the Court’s Order dated 11.04.2018, the respondents have invoked the provision of Clause A of sub Section 1 of Section 44 of the Mizoram (Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement) Act, 2016, however, the direction to the effect that the land acquisition award shall be made based on market value of the petitioners’ land to be determined as on 01.05.2013 (the date the preliminary notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was published in the Mizoram Gazette) is totally in violation of Section 26 of the said Act, inasmuch as, under Section 26, the date ought to have been from the date on which the Notification under Section 11 of the said Act was issued i.e., 26.05.2020.

¶40

Be that as it may, apparent that the order of this Court dated 10.07.2017 stands complied. This Court while exercising contempt jurisdiction cannot go into the validity of the orders passed by the State Government.

¶41

Page No.# 5/5

¶42

Accordingly, nothing survives for adjudication in the instant contempt petition.

¶43

As such, the contempt petition stands closed.

¶44

JUDGE

¶45

Comparing Assistant

Z Zothansanga and 10 Ors. v. Lalramthanga and 14 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Z Zothansanga and 10 Ors. v. Lalramthanga and 14 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Santosh Roy and Anr. Vs Sri Sameer Kumar Khare, I.A.S. and 3 Ors.

Manoj Kumar Roy and 2 Ors. Vs Bivash Modi

Bamang Roy and 17 Ors. Vs Dharmendra and 5 Ors.

Smt Haribala Devi Vs Ratul Baruah

Binod Chandra Roy Vs Alok Kumar (Ias) and 3 Ors.

Abu Bakkar Mazumder and 2 Ors. Vs Sanjeeb Kumar Das and Anr.

Mostab Ali Sheikh @ Mostab Ali @ Mostam Ali and Anr. Vs Dibakar Nath and Anr.

Momi Saikia Vs G.S. Panesar, Acs and Anr.

Smt. Lalrinsangi Sailo and 3 Ors. Vs Sh. Vanlalrengpuia Sailo (L) r/b his wife Smt. Lalrokimi Fanai and Anr.

Smt. Lalrinsangi Sailo and 3 Ors. Vs Sh. Vanlalrengpuia Sailo (L) S/o Lalrivunga Sailo (L) R/b his wife Lalrokimi Fanai and Anr.

Kailash Prasad Jain Vs Sh Lalbiakzama

C Rosangluaia and 7 Ors. Vs Lalramthanga, Secy PWD Govt. of Mizoram and 18 Ors.

Mobarak Ali Vs the State of Assam and 8 Ors.

Mazida Ahmed and 2 Ors. Vs the State of Assam and 10 Ors.