AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
,,,
1.Heard Mr. C. Lalramzauva, the learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. A.R. Malhotra for the writ petitioners. Also heard Ms. Zairemsangpuii, the",,,
learned CGC appearing for the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and Mrs. Linda L. Fambawl, the learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondent",,,
Nos. 3 to 6.,,,
Since the facts of the case and the controversy involved was already taken into account by this Court on 10.10.2017, it would be gainful to abstract",,,
the relevant portion of the Order dated 10.10.2017 as below:-,,,
“The petitioners are claiming payment of rental compensation for occupation of their lands by the Armed Forces for the period from January 1987,,,
to August 2008, which is to be paid by the Defence Ministry, Government of India.",,,
The petitioners case in brief is that their lands had been forcibly occupied by the Armed Forces without payment of rent. Accordingly, the",,,
petitioners filed WP(C) No. 67/2010 praying for payment of rent for occupation of their lands from April 1966. WP(C) No. 67/2010 was disposed of,,,
vide Order dated 09.06.2011 as follows:-,,,
“12. Since a consensus has been arrived at in between the parties to the proceedings for constitution of a Joint Verification Committee for the,,,
verification of the lands of the petitioners (in all the writ petitions) and consequent assessment and computation of the rental compensation, a direction",,,
is issued to the answering respondents (in all the writ petitions) to constitute a Joint Verification Committee with the following members:,,,
(1) The Director (N.E.-II), Ministry of Home Affairs or his representative.",,,
(2) Defence Estate Officer, Guwahati Circle, Ministry of Defence or his representative.",,,
(3) Secretary to the Government of Mizoram, Department of Land Revenue and Settlement or his representative.",,,
(4) Deputy Commissioner of the District concerned.,,,
(5) The Commandant of the Army unit/Paramilitary Forces occupying the land or his representative, if any.",,,
(6) The petitioners and their representative(s)â€.,,,
The Joint Team so to be constituted shall verify the lands of the petitioners to be under the occupation of Army/Paramilitary Forces and shall,,,
furnish all details to appropriate authorities for assessment/computation of the rental compensation and payment thereto. The exercise of conducting,,,
joint spot verification shall be completed within a period of 6 (six) months from the date of the receipt of the copy of the judgment and order and 2,,,
(two) months thereafter for computation/assessment of the rental compensation and payment of the same to the petitioners, if their lands are found in",,,
occupation of the Army and Paramilitary Forces by next 3 (three) monthsâ€.,,,
In pursuance to the Order dated 09.06.2011 passed in WP(C) No. 67/2010, a joint spot verification was conducted and a joint spot verification",,,
report dated 15.11.2011 was issued, wherein it stated as follows:- “A spot verification further revealed that the plots of lands belonging to the",,,
petitioners in WP(C) No. 67/2010 actually fell within the lands covered by the blue print sketch mapâ€. The joint spot verification report basically,,,
proved the fact that the petitioners’ lands had been occupied by the Army from 1966 till it was dehired in the year 2008.,,,
Consequent to the joint spot verification report dated 15.11.2011, the Office of the Deputy Commissioner, Aizawl submitted the",,,
assessment/computation of rental charges payable to the petitioners and the same was forwarded by the Additional Deputy Commissioner (G) to the,,,
Under Secretary to the Government of Mizoram, Revenue Department vide letter dated 27.04.2012. Thereafter, the respondent No. 4 requested the",,,
Deputy Commissioner’s office to split the rental charges payable to the petitioners in three parts, as the rental charges for the period from 1966 till",,,
December 1986 was to be paid by the Home Ministry. The period from January 1987 till August 2008 was to be paid by the Ministry of Defence and,,,
the subsequent period from September 2008 to June 2011 was to be paid by the State Government.,,,
The State Government was to pay the rental charges from September 2008 to June 2011 to the petitioners in view of the fact that, though the lands",,,
of the petitioners were dehired by the Army w.e.f. 09.09.2008, the State Government had not handed over possession of the vacant lands to the",,,
petitioners till July, 2011.",,,
In view of the request made by the respondent No. 4 for splitting the rental charges into three parts, the Office of the Deputy Commissioner split",,,
the assessment of the rental compensation payable to the petitioners in three parts i.e., from April 1966 to December 1986, January 1987 to August",,,
2008 and September 2008 to June 2011.,,,
The assessment of rental compensation was sent to all the respondents for payment of rental charges to the petitioners. As no rental charges was,,,
forth-coming to the petitioners, the petitioners filed Contempt Case (C) No. 2/2014. During the proceedings of the contempt case, the Ministry of",,,
Home deposited the rental charges for the period from April 1966 to December 1986 with the State Government. The same was disbursed to the,,,
petitioners. Thereafter, the Ministry of Defence took the stand in the contempt proceedings that they had already made payment of rental charges to",,,
the State Government for the area which they had occupied, which was under the blue print sketch map and the non-disbursement of the rental",,,
charges to the petitioners was the liability of the State Government. They thus took the stand that no further payment was to be made by the Ministry,,,
of Defence as rental charges to the land holders including the petitioners.,,,
Contempt Case (C) No. 2/2014 was thereafter disposed of vide Order dated 08.12.2015 as follows:-,,,
“6. From the materials available on record, more particularly the “Joint Spot Verification Report†date 15/16.11.2011 it is apparent that there is",,,
no dispute as regard the entitlement of the petitioners to receive compensation on the aforesaid account. Dispute, if any, is pertaining to the question as",,,
to whether the amount of compensation already disbursed by the respondent Nos. 4 & 5 covers the claims of the petitioners herein or whether such,,,
amount is yet to be disbursed by the respondent Nos. 4 & 5 to the respondent Nos. 6, 7, 8, 10 & 11. It is quite natural that unless the amount is paid by",,,
the respondent Nos. 4 & 5 to the State authorities, they would not be able to disburse the same to the petitioners. On the other hand, the stand taken",,,
by the respondent Nos. 4 & 5 raises a bona fide dispute as regard to their further obligation to make payment in the matter. In my considered opinion,",,,
the aforesaid dispute has to be determined judicially by relying upon the documentary evidence on record which cannot be done in the instant contempt,,,
proceeding.,,,
It is settled law that the Court in exercise of contempt jurisdiction cannot issue further direction nor can it take upon itself, the power to decide",,,
,1st Payment,2nd Payment,3rd Payment
,"(1.9.86 to
31.12.1997)","(1.1.1998 to
31.12.2005","(1.1.2006
to31.12.2007)
Sanctioned by MoD,"Rs. 28,32,028.00","Rs. 50,72,217.69","Rs. 1,26,80,54.42
Disbursed by Govt.
of Mizoram as per
APR","Rs. 25,63,785.70","Rs. 49,97,696.85","Rs. 1,26,80,54.42
Thereafter, the learned Government Advocate has filed an additional affidavit of the State respondents in terms of the Order dated 10.10.2017 on",,,
02.2018. By the said affidavit, the State respondents have contended that the land of the petitioners are not included in the 6.991 acres of the",,,
private lands, as recorded by the Board proceedings on 1992 and 1993. However, the joint verification report dated 15.11.2011 indicates that their",,,
lands are within the Blue Print area i.e., the area occupied by the Army. The first APR for the period of 1986 to 1997 do not provide the details of",,,
land holdings but contains only the amount sanctioned and that the sanction was for an area of 6.991 acres. The second and third APR’s contains,,,
the details of the land and the amount sanctioned and they are the same. Although there is a slight variation in the area of the land, the amount",,,
sanctioned and the disbursement tally with each other. Therefore, the variation of the area of the land is only negligible. It is further contended that an",,,
error apparently appeared in the report of the Board proceedings of 1992 to 1993, wherein the Government free land was indicated as 27.713 acres",,,
and that the lands of the petitioners were perhaps within this area. It was therefore, considered that the lands of the petitioners were within the Army",,,
occupied area but not within the 6.991 acres said to be the Army occupied area.,,,
Refuting the contention of the State respondents in the affidavit dated 28. 02.2018, the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 filed an additional affidavit on",,,
16.05.2018 reiterating that as per the 1992 to 1993 Board proceedings, 34.704 acres/104.98 bighas of land was under the occupation of the Army at",,,
Bawngkawn. Out of the same, a total of 6.991 acres/21.147 bighas were private holdings in the form of LSC passes. The balance 27.713 acres/83.83",,,
bighas was Government land. Since the Ministry of Defence already paid its liability towards rent for 6.991 acres of land, there was no further liability.",,,
Moreover, the private lands have since been dehired w.e.f., 09.09.2008.",,,
I have heard the submissions advanced by the learned counsels for the rival parties and I have perused the materials on record.,,,
The assessment of rental charges for occupation of the land of the petitioners by the Armed Forces was assessed by the respondent No. 6,,,
for three periods i.e., April 1966 to 31.08.1986, January 1987 to August 2008 and September 2008 to June 2011. In so far as the assessment for the",,,
first and the last period is concerned, the same are already satisfied by the Ministry of Home and the State Government respectively. For the second",,,
period of occupation under the Ministry of Defence, the amount assessed was Rs. 47,50,350/-. It is for this period that the petitioners have made their",,,
claim along with interest for delayed payment. It is the contention of the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 that they have paid rental compensation for the area,,,
of land covered by the Blue Print sketch map covering an area of 6.991 acres. However, the joint verification conducted on 15.11.2011 came to the",,,
finding that the land of the petitioners actually fell within the area covered by the Blue Print sketch map and if such is the case, it appears that the joint",,,
verification or the Board proceedings of 1992 to 1993 appears to have excluded the land of the petitioners by considering their land to be a,,,
Government free land. Since it is found that the land of the petitioners are within the Blue Print area after the spot verification was conducted on,,,
15.11.2011, the Ministry of Defence would only be liable to pay rental compensation to the petitioners as was assessed by the respondent No. 6 and",,,
communicated to the State Government in the Revenue Department on 23.08.2012.,,,
In that view of the matter, this writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 to arrange the fund for payment of rental",,,
compensation to the petitioners to the tune of Rs. 47,50,350/- for the period from January 1987 to August 2008 along with interest @ 6% p.a. from the",,,
date of the assessment up to the date of filing the present writ petition i.e., 11.02.2016. The amount should be deposited by the respondent Nos. 1 and",,,
2 before the respondent No. 6 within a period of 8 (eight) weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order, failing which the rate of",,,
interest shall be enhanced to 12% p.a. from the date of the assessment till final payment thereof.,,,
With the above observation and direction, the Writ Petition is disposed of.",,,