F.Lalhungliana Vs Sh John Lt Sanga and 5 Ors.

Heard Ms. Valentina Laldinpuii, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. Sanjay Kumar Medhi, learned counsel representing the Railways i.e., respondent Nos. 5 and 6 and Mrs. H. Lalmalsawmi, learned counsel representing the respondent Nos. 1 and 3.

¶19

2. This is a contempt application filed under Rule 9 of the Contempt of Court (Gauhati High Court) Rules, 1977, read with Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 alongwith Article 215 of the Constitution of India.

¶20

3. The petitioner has claimed that the Judgment & Order dated 19.03.2020 was not followed or complied with by the respondents. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner had filed a writ petition being WP(C) No. 148/2019 praying inter alia that the respondent more specifically the Railways should pay the damaged compensation for the damage done on his land as well as the compensation to be given to him in case the Railways acquires the said land for its purpose. The learned Court vide Order dated 19.03.2020 had directed that a verification team should be constituted by the Secretary to the Government of Mizoram, Land Revenue & Settlement Department consisting of the District

¶21

Page No.# 3/19

¶22

Collector-cum-Deputy Commissioner, Kolasib or its representatives, the Deputy Chief Engineer (Construction) N.F. Railway, Silchar, Assam or his representatives and the petitioner. The said verification team was directed to be constituted to verify the lands of the petitioner within a period of one month from the date of the receipt of the order.

¶23

4. The High Court had further directed by the said Order that if the verification team finds that the land of the petitioner had been used by the respondent No. 2 i.e., the Railways for constructing a road, then the railways shall take a decision within two weeks from the date of the verification, as to whether they want to permanently acquire the lands. It is thereafter directed that if the Railway decides to acquire the land, it should give requisition to the concerned authorities, for acquisition of the land and as per the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, an Award shall be made within a further period of two months. The Court further directed that if the Railways however decides, not to acquire the lands, they should stop using the petitioner’s land therewith and as a consequence, the District Collector arrayed as respondent No. 1, shall verify and assess the damaged caused to the petitioners land within a month from the decision taken by the Railways and the amount so computed shall be paid to the petitioner by

¶24

Page No.# 4/19

¶25

respondent No. 2 i.e., Railways within a further period of one month from the date of assessment made by the District Collector-cum-Deputy Commissioner, Kolasib.

¶26

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the said Order dated 19.03.2020 was communicated to the Secretary, Land Revenue & Settlement Department, New Capital Complex, Aizawl, Mizoram, by the petitioner through the Letter dated 09.09.2020. The learned counsel further submits that in pursuance to the said order, a notification was issued on 15.09.2020, by which the Secretary to the Government of Mizoram, Land Revenue & Settlement Department notified that the verification team is constituted to verify the land of the petitioner covered by Periodic Patta No. 501861/10/58 of 2005. It was further notified that the said committee would find out whether the said land covered by the said Periodic Patta was damaged by construction of the approached road by N.F. Railway. The committee was directed to be consisted of the Deputy Commissioner (Kolasib) or his representatives, Deputy Chief Engineer, (Construction), N.F. Railway, Silchar, Assam or its representatives and the owner of the said plot of land i.e., the petitioner. The learned counsel however submits that the petitioner is unaware as to what happened after the said notification was issued.

¶27

Page No.# 5/19

¶28

6. The learned counsel further submits that by an application under the Right

¶29

to Information Act, the petitioner was apprised that compensation was assessed with regard to the damage done on his land by fixing an amount of Rs. 4,84,200/- to be given in respect of the land covered by Periodic Patta No. 58/2005, and an amount of Rs. 3,22,800/- was assessed as damage done on the land covered by Periodic Patta No. 59/2005 i.e., for the land owned by the petitioner as well as other land owned by the wife of the petitioner respectively. The learned counsel further submits that although computation was done, the said amount has not been paid to the petitioner as well as to his wife and there is a violation of the Order dated 19.03.2020 in which, it was specifically directed that on damage being assessed by the District Collector, respondent No. 2 i.e., the Railways should pay the amount to the petitioner within a specified period of time. She submits that there is willful violation of the Order dated 19.03.2020 by the respondents concerned.

¶30

7. On the other hand, Mr. Sanjay Kumar Medhi, learned counsel for the Railways representing respondent Nos. 5 and 6 submitted that pursuant to the said Order dated 19.03.2020, a verification committee was constituted and thereafter, a joint verification was done in respect of the land i.e., land covered by Periodic Patta No. 58/2005 and 59/2005 and a report was submitted on

¶31

Page No.# 6/19

¶32

16.12.2020. In the said report, it was stated that during the verification, the representatives of the Railways as well as the petitioner were present and that both the parties submitted relevant documents in connection thereof. Arguments were also made by both the parties and the same were jotted down in the said report. The petitioner during the said verification had stated that Railways had constructed road through his land by mentioning both the lands under Periodic Patta Nos. 58/2005 and 59/2005 and the Railway have damaged his land and has also caused damaged by dumping soil. He further argued that the Railways had not given him any compensation for the damage caused and that he was not aware that the Railways would be constructing road through his land and he measured the land which is damaged by the Railways as 900 meters approximately. During the verification, the representative of the Railways had argued that Railway started work for repairing the existing road after obtaining the no-objection certificate from the Deputy Commissioner, Kolasib dated 06.02.2015. It was also stated by the representative of the Railway that the allegation of dumping soil on the said land raised by the petitioner, was in fact, the construction material for improvement of the said road and also that six years had gone by since the work had started i.e., development of the road, no objection was raised during that period.

¶33

Page No.# 7/19

¶34

8. On the basis of the arguments made by both the parties, observations were recorded in the report wherein, it was inter alia stated that the road existed on the day of verification and the same had passed through the land of the petitioner and that the said road was utilized by the Railways. Further observations were made on the contesting claim made by both the parties to the effect as to whether the road has existed prior to Railways coming into the picture. To this, the committee made the observation that the same needs to be clarified with the then Village Council President of the concerned area. Also on the submission that the Railways had obtained no-objection certificate from the Village Council, an observation was made for getting clarification as to whether no-objection certificate was obtained by the said Village Council from the land owners. However, during the verification, the Settlement Officer was not represented and as such, the actual area of damage could not be ascertained.

¶35

9. Thereafter, due to absence of the Settlement Officer on the previous verification, as stated above, a re-verification was directed to be conducted in respect of the same issue, and the said re-verification was scheduled for 5th February, 2021. The verification team was comprised of the following members, namely, the Sub-Deputy Collector or a representative of the Deputy Collector, Kolasib, the Settlement Officer or her representative, the Deputy Chief Engineer,

¶36

Page No.# 8/19

¶37

(Construction) NF Railway, Silchar or his representative, and the petitioner. This was declared by issuing a Joint Verification Notice, on 1st February, 2021, and in the said notice, it was directed that the verification report be submitted to the Deputy Collector, Kolasib District, immediately on conclusion of the verification. However, the verification could not be conducted on 05.02.2021 as directed, and the said verification was again fixed for 23.03.2021.

¶38

The spot verification was conducted on 23.03.2021 and during the said verification, the Settlement Officer, Kolasib, the Sub-Deputy Collector, the Surveyor, and the petitioner were present, and the report was submitted on the same day itself. In the said report, it was, however, stated that, during the verification, the Deputy Chief Engineer, (Construction), NF Railway, was not present. Further, in the said report, it was stated that verification had already been conducted with regard to the said land on 16th December, 2020, wherein it was established that the Railways had constructed a road on the lands of the petitioner, which passes through both the lands covered under Periodic Patta Nos. 58 & 59 of 2005. It was further stated that the total length of the road passing through the petitioner's land was 930 metres and the total area of the land wherein damage is caused by the Railways was 23,301 sq. metres, as per the calculation made using Google Earth. It was, however, mentioned in the said report that the damage had been caused to the land of the petitioner by the

¶39

Page No.# 9/19

¶40

dumping of soil as well wherein trees had grown. An estimate was also made that the damaged area was approximately 26,000 sq. metres.

¶41

11. However, due to absence of the representatives of the Railways in the said verification conducted on 23.03.2021, as stated above, the Deputy Secretary to the Govt. of Mizoram, Land Revenue & Settlement Department, requested the Deputy Collector, Kolasib District, to re-conduct a spot verification, in respect of the said lands in presence of the representatives of the Railway, and the Deputy Commissioner, Kolasib District, ordered a re-verification on 15th September, 2021 and constituted a team by issuing a Joint Verification Notice dated 18th August, 2021. In pursuance of the said notice, the verification was conducted on 15.09.2021, and during the said verification, the representative of the Railway was present, and the report was submitted on the same day itself. In the said report, it was stated that an assessment was done in respect of the damage caused to the said land, and the area of the damaged land measured at 1,200 sq. metres in respect of the land covered under Periodic Patta No. 59/2005, and in respect of the other land covered under Periodic Patta No. 58/2005, the area of the damaged land was measured at 18,000 sq. metres. However, the representative of the NF Railway refused to sign the assessment sheet. The representative claimed that the issue of assessment was not mentioned in the notice and that, being the representative of the Railways, he could not take any

¶42

Page No.# 10/19

¶43

decision on the spot by himself. It was also stated in the report that the said assessment was done as per the direction contained in the letter of the Land Revenue & Settlement Department, dated 03.08.2021 issued on the same subject. In the said report, it was further stipulated that the Railways did not agree with the findings, as recorded in the note appended therein.

¶44

The learned counsel for the Railways further placed reliance on the NoObjection Certificates issued by both the Deputy Commissioner, Kolasib District, as well as the President of the Village Council, wherein it was stated that the land on which the road was sought to be repaired and developed by the Railways, was owned by the Village Council. He submitted that the said land was not owned by the petitioner and, therefore, the petitioner was not entitled to claim compensation in respect thereof. He further submitted that the petitioner came into the picture as the owner of the said land only in 2019 and that the Railways had started developing the said road in the year 2015. He further submitted that the order of this Court dated 19.03.2020 was not complied with by the other Respondents, inasmuch as the verification was not done as per the said order and, accordingly, the compensation computed in respect of the damage caused to the land cannot be claimed from the Railways.

¶45

13. Accordingly, he submitted that the Railways had not committed any

¶46

Page No.# 11/19

¶47

contempt. He also submitted that the assessment was done, not only in respect

¶48

of the alleged damage caused to the land of the petitioner but also in respect of the alleged damage caused to the land owned by the petitioner's wife. The land covered by Periodic Patta No. 59/2005, which was subsequently owned by the petitioner's wife from 2019 onwards, was not mentioned in the order of this Court, and as such, the respondent Railways cannot be directed to pay the compensation assessed in respect of the said land.

¶49

The learned counsel for the petitioner, however, in reply to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the Railways, submitted that the lands covered by Periodic Patta Nos. 58 & 59 of 2005 were owned by the erstwhile owner, who sold the same to the petitioner and his wife, respectively in the year 2018 and that before 2018, the said pattas were in the name of the erstwhile owner. She further submits that the said land covered by the Periodic Patta No. 58/2005 was owned by one Zoremsiama s/o C. Tlanghmingthanga and the land covered by the Periodic Patta No. 59/2005 was owned by C. Tlanghmingthanga. She further submits that it is Mr. C. Tlanghmingthanga who had sold his property covered by Periodic Patta No. 58/2005 and Periodic Patta No. 59/2005, to the present petitioner. She further submits that the mutation of the plot of land covered by Periodic Patta No. 59/2005 was done subsequently,

¶50

Page No.# 12/19

¶51

in the name of the wife of the petitioner. As such, she submits that it is not a case where the land was owned by the Village Council till the year 2018, when the plots of lands were sold to the petitioner, but the same were owned by erstwhile owners under the same Periodic Patta. She therefore submits that the road that was used and developed by Railways, went through the land covered by Periodic Patta No. 58/2005 and 59/2005, which were purchased by the petitioner in the year 2018, when the Sale Deeds were executed. She further submits that when the order was passed by this Court on 19.03.2020, the petitioners and his wife, were owners of the said plots of land and there is no bar for the petitioner and his wife to claim the compensation for the damaged part of their land.

¶52

15. I have heard the learned counsels and I have gone through the documents carefully.

¶53

16. The order of this Court on 19.03.2020 shows that the learned counsels for all the parties were heard and it was specifically written that the counsel for the Railways had no objection to the prayer made by the petitioner’s counsel and on the consent of all the parties, the said order was passed. By the said order, this Court had directed the Secretary to the Government of Mizoram, Land Revenue

¶54

Page No.# 13/19

¶55

& Settlement Department, to constitute a verification team consisting of the representatives of the Deputy Commissioner/Collector as well as the Railways and the petitioner, who would verify the lands of the petitioner and on verification, if the land is found to have been used by the Railways for constructing a road, then the Railways were directed to take a decision to acquire the said land as provided under the law and if the Railways decide not to acquire the land, appropriate compensation to be paid to the petitioner within a time frame.

¶56

17. In pursuant to the said order, a verification was conducted after a team was constituted and upon verification, a report was submitted on 16.12.2020. In the said report, it was stated by the representatives of the Railways that they had started repairing the existing road on obtaining a No-objection certificate from the Deputy Commissioner, Kolasib dated 06.02.2015 and that the dumping done on the said land was for improvement of the road. The Committee after hearing the contentions of all the parties had reached the finding that the approach road had passed through the land of the petitioner and the Railways were utilizing the said road and was developing the same. As such, it was observed by the Committee in final terms that the department of Railway was using the said road and was developing the same and the said road went

¶57

Page No.# 14/19

¶58

through the land of the petitioner. In the said report, it was also stated that whether there was any road used by the people before the Railways starting using it, has to be clarified from the Village Council President of the said area and it was also stated that whether the No-objection Certificate was obtained by the Village Council from the land owners, should also be found out. However, the fact remains that in the first verification itself findings were reached that land of the petitioner was damaged by the Railways. The assessment would have also been done, then and there itself but due to absence of the Settlement Officer, the actual area of damage caused in the land, could not be ascertained. Now, the Railways cannot turn around and say that damage was not caused by them on the land of the petitioner due to the fact that they were utilizing the existing road and for the development of the same, they had dumped construction materials and had actually caused damage to the area.

¶59

18. In the said report, it was stated that Railways had objected to the said facts in view of the further fact that they were constructing the road from six years but there was no objection from any quarter. However, that cannot be a ground for non-payment of the compensation or assessment amount to the petitioner. In view of the absence of the Settlement Officer, a re-verification was done on 23.03.2021 and a report was also submitted on the same date wherein

¶60

Page No.# 15/19

¶61

it was again re-iterated that Railways had constructed road on the lands of the petitioner covered by Periodic Patta No. 58/2005 and the land of the wife of the petitioner covered by Periodic Patta No. 59/2005 and in the presence of the Settlement Officer, the road constructed by Railways on the petitioner’s land was measured as 950 metres in length and the total damaged caused to the said land was also measured as 23301 square metres. Alongwith the same, the damage caused was calculated to cover an area of an approximate 26,000 square metre.

¶62

19. However, during the said verification done on 23.03.2021 the representatives of the Railways were not there and as such, new verification was conducted and in the verification notice, a letter issued by the Government of Mizoram, Land Revenue & Settlement Department dated 03.08.2021 was mentioned in the same and the re-verification was scheduled, on 15.09.2021. On the said day, a joint verification was again held in the presence of the representatives of the Railways and the report was prepared and in the Report, the damage measured in respect of Periodic Patta No. 59/2005 was assessed for an area of 1200 square metre and in respect of the other land, it was assessed for an area of 18,000 square metre, which comes to a total of 1,93,750 square feet. In the said report, the representative of the North-East Frontier Railways,

¶63

Page No.# 16/19

¶64

refused to sign in the assessment sheet on the ground that the assessment was not mentioned in the notice. However, the same cannot be considered to be a valid ground inasmuch as, the letter issued by the Government of Mizoram, Land Revenue & Settlement Department was mentioned in the said notice and it be stated here that the said letter was for assessment of the damage caused, which were already found in the previous verifications.

¶65

20. It can be clearly seen that the subsequent joint verification conducted on 15.09.2021, was only with regard to assessment for the damages that had occurred in the land of the petitioner. The said purpose was already mentioned in the joint verification notice but the representative of the Railways had either failed to notice the same or is deliberately refusing to accept the assessment.

¶66

21. This Court had further examined the statement for assessment of compensation prepared by the Committee comprising of the Members i.e. the Surveyor, the Settlement Officer, the President of Village Council and it was decided that in respect of the land covered by the Periodic Patta No. 58/2005, the damage compensation should be calculated @ Rs. 25 per sq. feet and that the damaged area comes to an area covering 18,000 square metre and the amount assessed was at Rs. 48,42,000/- and in respect of the land held under

¶67

Page No.# 17/19

¶68

Periodic Patta No. 59/2005, the damaged area is found covering an area of

¶69

12,000 square metre and the amount assessed for the said damage was fixed at Rs. 3,22,800/-. The said assessment was approved by the District Collector Kolasib Mizoram. After the said assessment was made, the Settlement Officer, Land Revenue & Settlement Department, Kolasib by letter dated 23.09.2021 had intimated the Deputy Commissioner and the District Collector, Kolasib District that assessment had been done, in respect of the land for causing damage on the same and the calculated amount was fixed at Rs. 51,64,800/-. It is in the order dated 19.03.2020 that after the assessment, the amount for the damage caused should be given to the petitioner by the Railways within a stipulated time.

¶70

22. Under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, most specifically, under Section 12 of the said Act, on proof of contempt been committed, the contemnor may be punished with prescribed punishment provided therein which entails Simple Imprisonment for a period of 6 months or with fine, which may extend to Rs. 2000 or with both. It is further provided that an accused person or the contemnor may also be discharged or the punishment awarded, may be remitted on apology being tendered by the said contemnor, to the satisfaction of this Court.

¶71

Page No.# 18/19

¶72

23. The Hon’ble Supreme Court had held that instead of punishing the accused person under the contempt jurisdiction, a Court can pass restitutive or remedial measures to enforce compliance or to rectify the wrong committed. Under the Contempt of Court’s Act, the Courts are not restricted only to penalize the contemnor. The underlying purpose of Civil Contempt is to ensure compliance, not necessarily to punish. The Hon’ble High Court of Allahabad, in its Judgment and Order delivered in Vidya Sagar Vs. IIIrd Additional District Judge & Others, reported in 1991 CrLJ 2286, had held as follow:-

¶73

“ Civil Contempt arises in cases where power of the court

¶74

is invoked and exercised to enforce obedience to the orders of

¶75

the court. Considering the orders passed by learned District Judge dated 20-3-1982, it cannot be construed that the order passed was a consent order or a compromise decree and for whose non-compliance, appropriate action can be taken under Civil Procedure Code. In this case it is clear that it was an undertaking given to the court and apart from the power to punish for contempt it was also obligatory on the court to have taken necessary steps to enforce obedience

¶76

of the undertaking, given to the court. The reason why breach of the undertaking given to the court amounts to contempt is that a

¶77

Page No.# 19/19

¶78

contemner by making false representation to the court obtains benefit for himself and if he fails to honour the undertaking he plays serious fraud on the court itself and thereby obstruct the course of justice and brings into disrepute the judicial institution”.

¶79

It is as such noticed that compliance of Court’s order, is the prime purpose to be achieved in contempt jurisdiction. Accordingly, this Court deems it fit that the Department of North-East Frontier Railway represented by the concerned official, should comply with the direction given in the order dated 19.03.2020, to the effect that the Railways should pay the assessed amount to the petitioner. It is, as such, directed that the Railways should pay the assessed amount, which was fixed at Rs. 51,64,800/- to the petitioner, for the damage caused to the land of the petitioner, without fail, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order.

¶80

24. The petitioner is also given liberty to place the copy of the instant Judgment before the authorities in the NF Railway.

¶81

25. The contempt petition stands closed.

¶82

JUDGE

¶83

Comparing Assistant

F.Lalhungliana v. Sh John Lt Sanga and 5 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

F.Lalhungliana v. Sh John Lt Sanga and 5 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Nizam Uddin Vs Harmeet Singh, IPS

Shobalal Malla Vs Paban Terang and 4 Ors.

Nizam Uddin Vs Harmeet Singh, IPS

Hage Mima Vs R K Joshi

Sudhir Paul Vs Dr Preety Lekha Deka, Acs and 2 Ors.

Ledo Sonaligaon Pathar Parichalana Samity Vs Vikram Dev Dutta, IAS and 4 Ors.

Akhoy Deka and 126 Ors. Vs Deba Kumar Mishra, Acs

H.Hmingthanfela Vs Sh R.Zarzosanga and 11 Ors.

Vanlalsiama Vs Lalnunmawia Chuaungo and 5 Ors.

Sh. Zoramchhana Vs The State of Mizoram

Sh. Md. Saif uddin@ abu Saleh Md Saif uddin Vs The State of Mizoram

N.F. Railway r/b the Deputy Chief Engineer, Construction Vs The State of Mizoram r/b the Secretary to the Govt. of Mizoram and 3 Ors.

Sh. Thangchunga Vs The State of Mizoram

State of Mizoram and 5 Ors. Vs Mizoram Ssa Teachers Association and Anr.