NON REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 7825      OF 2011 (Arising out of SLP(C) No.18850 of 2006)

Lalrinvenga (Dead) Through L.Rs. and another ...Appellants

Versus

State of Mizoram and others  ...Respondents

J U D G M E N T

G.S. SINGHVI, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. This appeal is directed against the judgment of the Division Bench of the  

Gauhati High Court whereby the appeal preferred by the respondents against the  

order  of  the  learned  Single  Judge  was  allowed  and it  was  declared  that  Land  

Settlement Certificates issued in favour of the appellants after the publication of  

declaration issued under Section 6(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short,  

`the Act’) and notification dated 14.6.1985 prohibiting allotment of land to any

private individual will not confer any right upon them to claim compensation in  

respect of the acquired land.

3. The appellants purchased land measuring 11.37 bighas from Dangliana to  

whom Periodic Patta No. 40/81 is said to have been granted under Rule 6 of the  

Mizo District  (Agricultural  Land) Rules,  1971.   They submitted applications  to  

Director,  Land  Revenue  and  Settlement,  Mizoram (respondent  No.2)  who  had  

issued order dated 18.1.1983 authorising Assistant Settlement Officer-II to decide  

such applications for grant of Land Settlement Certificates.  After considering the  

applications,  the  Settlement  Officer  issued  certificates  bearing  Nos.AZ-2279 of  

1987 and AZ-2278 of 1987 in favour of the appellants under Section II of the Mizo  

District (Land Revenue) Act, 1956.    

4. In the meanwhile, the State Government issued notification dated 14.5.1985  

under Section 4(1) of the Act  for the acquisition of land in villages old Beraw and  

Zokhawsang for a public purpose, namely, allotment to the Assam Rifles in lieu of  

the site occupied by them in Aizawl town.  After one month, the State Government  

issued order dated 14.6.1985 and imposed restriction on the allotment of land to  

private  persons  along  the  main  National  Highway  and  the  road  going  to  old  

Zokhawsang Village.   

2

5. Another  notification  was issued  on 13.8.1987 under  Section  4(1)  for  the  

acquisition of area between the site allotted to the Church for locating Theological  

College and N.H.-54 Aizawl-Lunglei Road at Lokhawsang for allotting the same to  

the Assam Rifles. The declaration issued under Section 6 of the Act was published  

in Mizoram Gazette dated 20.11.1987.  Land Acquisition Collector, Aizawl passed  

an  award  sometime  in  July/August  1988  for  payment  of  compensation  of  

Rs.92,59,156/-.

6. As  a  sequel  to  initiation  of  the  acquisition  proceedings,  the  State  

Government directed respondent No.2 to cancel the Land Settlement Certificates  

issued in favour of the appellants and others on the ground that the same were  

issued  without  the  approval  and  sanction  of  the  competent  authority  and  in  

violation of Government Notification No. LRR/B-40/84-85/19 dated 14.5.1985 and  

Order  No.  LRR/B-40/84-85/21  dated  14.6.1985.  Thereupon,  respondent  No.2  

passed order  dated 8.8.1988 and declared that  the  Land Settlement  Certificates  

issued in favour of the appellants were invalid.   

7. The appellants  challenged the acquisition proceedings in a petition under  

Article 226 of the Constitution which was registered as Civil Rule No. 3943 of  

1994. They also prayed for quashing of order dated 8.8.1988 issued by respondent  

3

No.2 and for issue of a mandamus to the respondents to pay full compensation with  

interest and solatium in lieu of the acquisition of their land. In  the  counter  

affidavit  filed  on  behalf  of  the  respondents,  it  was  pleaded  that  order  dated  

14.6.1985  was  issued  by  the  State  Government  because  after  publication  of  

notification  dated  14.5.1985,  the  writ  petitioners  and  other  similarly  situated  

persons had connived with some unscrupulous officers and were trying to convert  

their agricultural passes into Land Settlement Certificates or get fresh permanent  

settlement  so  that  they  could  claim compensation.   It  was  further  pleaded that  

declaration  issued  under  Section  6  of  the  Act  was  published  in  the  Mizoram  

Gazette dated 1.10.1985 and also in the local newspapers.  The cancellation of the  

Land Settlement Certificates was justified on the premise that the same were issued  

without the sanction of the competent authority and in violation of Government  

order dated 14.6.1985.

8. The petition filed by the appellants was transferred to Aizawl Bench of the  

High Court and was re-numbered as Writ Petition (C) No.114 of 2000.  At the  

hearing  of  the  petition,  learned  counsel  for  the  parties  agreed  that  despite  

cancellation  of  the  Land  Settlement  Certificates,  the  appellants  are  entitled  to  

compensation.  The learned Single Judge took cognizance of the statement of the  

4

learned counsel and passed order dated 7.1.2003, the relevant portion of which is  

extracted below:

“………………At the time of argument, counsels appearing for  the parties have agreed that although the House Site Settlement  Certificates  was cancelled  by the  order  passed No.8.8.88 the  petitioners  shall  be  entitled  to  a  compensation,  whatsoever  payable under the law, for the land falling under the Certificates  No.G.274/88 and G./275/86 which are  the  Agricultural  Land  Settlement  Certificates,  for  the  acquisition  of  the  land.   The  petitioners  certificate  of  Agricultural  Land  Settlement  Certificate  No.G.274/86  and  G.275/86  having  not  been  cancelled  they  are  entitled  for  grant  of  compensation  for  acquisition of these lands under the Land Acquisition Act as per  law which according to petitioners is not paid to them.  The  Certificates which have been cancelled are only the House Site  Settlement  Certificates  No.AZ-2278/87  and  No.AZ-2279/87.  The petitioners are entitled to compensation for acquisition of  right  of  the  petitioner  in  the  land  of  which  they  held  under  Agricultural Land Settlement Certificate.  The respondents are  directed to assess the compensation in accordance with law and  pay the same to the petitioner’s.”          

9. Although, the aforesaid order was passed with the consent of the learned  

counsel appearing on their behalf, the respondents challenged the same in Writ  

Appeal  No.1  of  2005.   The  Division  Bench  of  the  High  Court  did  take  

cognizance of the appellants’ plea that the Land Settlement Certificates issued  

in their favour could not have been cancelled on the premise that the land had  

already  been  acquired  because  notification  dated  14.5.1985  had  not  been  

5

published  in  the  Official  Gazette,  but  negatived  the  same  by  making  the  

following observation:

“It  appears  from the official  gazette  that  the  declaration  under  Section 6(1) dated 1/10/85 was published in the official gazette on  4/10/85,  which  presupposes  the  publication  of  the  notification  under  Section 4(1)  of  the Act.   That  apart  another  notification  dated 14/6/85 was also issued which was published in the official  gazette on the same day restricting/freezing the allotment of land  in question to the private individuals and directing all concerned  not to entertain the applications for such allotment within the area  specified in the said notification, which has not been challenged  in the writ proceeding. Once the land acquisition proceeding has  been initiated and notification dated 14/6/85 is issued prohibiting  allotment of land in question in favour of any person, there cannot  be any conversion of the passes into the land settlement certificate  conferring better right on any person.”

10. Shri Shourjiyo Mukherjee, learned counsel for the appellants argued that  

the finding recorded by the Division Bench of the High Court on the legality of  

the Land Settlement Certificates issued in favour of the appellants is  ex facie  

erroneous  and  is  liable  to  be  set  aside  because  the  same  is  based  on  an  

unfounded assumption that notification dated 14.5.1985 had been published in  

the Official Gazette and the order issued by the State Government prohibiting  

allotment  of  land  to  the  private  individuals  was  applicable  to  their  case.  

Learned counsel submitted that the respondents had not produced any evidence  

to show that the notification issued under Section 4(1)  of the Act had been  

published  in  the  Official  Gazette  and  argued  that  in  the  absence  of  such  

6

publication, the Division Bench of the High Court was not justified in relying  

upon  the  publication  of  declaration  issued  under  Section  6  in  the  Official  

Gazette for recording a finding that Section 4(1) notification must have been  

likewise published in the Official Gazette.  Learned counsel emphasised that the  

Land Settlement Certificates issued in favour of the appellants could not have  

been declared invalid on the ground that the same were not sanctioned by the  

competent authority because vide order dated 18.1.1983, respondent No.2 had  

authorised the Assistant Settlement Officer-II to decide the applications made  

for grant of such certificate and the Settlement Officer who issued certificates in  

favour of the appellants was senior to the designated officer.  Shri Mukherjee  

then  argued  that  the  prohibition  contained  in  the  Government  order  dated  

14.6.1985 could not have been invoked in the appellants’ case because they had  

purchased land from a private individual, namely, Dangliana in 1984 and no  

allotment had been made in their favour by any public authority.   

11. Shri R.F. Nariman, learned Solicitor General fairly stated that the Official  

Gazette  in  which  notification  dated  14.5.1985  was  published  has  not  been  

produced  either  before  the  High  Court  or  this  Court,  but  argued  that  the  

appellants  cannot  claim  compensation  in  lieu  of  the  acquisition  of  land  in  

question because the purchase made by them was contrary to the statutory rules  

7

and order dated 14.6.1985.  Learned Solicitor General further argued that the  

Court may not interfere with the impugned judgment because the appellants had  

obtained  Land  Settlement  Certificates  by  manipulations  and  the  same  were  

rightly cancelled by the State Government.

12. We have considered the respective submissions/arguments and carefully  

scrutinized the record.  In our view, the reasons assigned by the Division Bench  

of the High Court for setting aside the order of the learned Single Judge are  

legally unsustainable.  Section 4(1) of the Act, which provides for publication  

of preliminary notification, reads as under:

“4.  Publication  of  preliminary notification  and powers  of  officers thereupon.–(1) Whenever it appears to the appropriate  Government that land in any locality is needed or is likely to be  needed for any public purpose or for a company a notification  to that effect shall be published in the Official Gazette and in  two daily  newspapers  circulating  in  that  locality  of  which at  least one shall  be in the regional language, and the Collector  shall cause public notice of the substance of such notification to  be given at convenient places in the said locality the last of the  dates of such publication and the giving of such public notice,  being hereinafter referred to as the date of the publication of the  notification.”   

13. A  reading  of  the  above  reproduced  provision  makes  it  clear  that  the  

notification issued by an appropriate Government proposing the acquisition of  

land must be published in the Official Gazette and two daily newspapers having  

8

wide circulation in the locality of which at least one shall be in the regional  

language.   Not only this,  the Collector is under an obligation to ensure that  

public notice of the substance of such notification is given at convenient places  

in  the  locality.   This  Court  has  repeatedly  held  that  the  requirement  of  

publication of notification in the Official Gazette and two local newspapers is  

mandatory.  The Division Bench of the High Court upheld the acquisition of  

land by assuming that notification dated 14.5.1985 issued under Section 4(1)  

must have been published in the Official Gazette because the declaration issued  

under  Section  6  was  published  in  the  Official  Gazette.   In  our  view,  this  

approach of the High Court was clearly erroneous.  The question whether the  

notification issued under Section 4(1) was published in the Official Gazette is a  

question  of  fact  and  such  question  cannot  be  decided  on  assumptions  and  

conjectures or inferences.  Whenever the acquisition of land is challenged on  

the ground that the notification has not been published as per the mandate of the  

statute, the authority defending the acquisition is under an obligation to produce  

evidence in the form of documents to prove that the requirement of publication  

has been complied.  In the absence of such evidence, the Court cannot decide  

challenge  to  the  acquisition  proceedings  by  assuming  that  the  particular  

notification had been published as per the requirement of law.  In the present  

case,  no  material  was  produced  before  the  High  Court  and  none  has  been  

9

produced before this  Court  to show that  notification dated 14.5.1985 issued  

under  Section  4(1)  of  the  Act  had  been  published  in  the  Official  Gazette.  

Therefore, the High Court was not justified in declining relief to the appellants  

by assuming that the said notification must have been published in the Official  

Gazette because other notifications including the one issued under Section 6  

was published in the Official Gazette.  

14. We also agree with Shri Mukherjee that the Land Settlement Certificates  

issued in favour of the appellants could not have been cancelled on the ground  

that the same were issued without the sanction or approval of the competent  

authority.  The respondents have not controverted the appellants’ assertion that  

vide  order  dated  18.1.1983,  respondent  No.2  had  authorised  the  Assistant  

Settlement Officer-II  to process and decide the  applications for grant  of  the  

Land Settlement Certificates.  It is also not in dispute that the appellants had  

purchased  land  in  1984  and  the  Settlement  Officer  had  issued  the  Land  

Settlement Certificates in 1987 after duly scrutinizing the applications made for  

that purpose. This action of the concerned officer was not in violation of order  

dated  14.6.1985  vide  which  allotment  of  land  to  private  individuals  was  

restricted/freezed along the main National Highway and the road leading to old  

Zokhawsang village which was earmarked for shifting of First Assam Rifles.  

10

Indeed, it was neither the pleaded case of the respondents before the High Court  

nor any evidence was produced to show that  the land in question had been  

allotted to the appellants by any public authority.

15. In the result, the appeal is allowed, the impugned judgment is set aside  

and the order passed by the learned Single Judge is restored.  The respondents  

are directed to pay the amount of compensation to the appellants in terms of the  

order of the learned Single Judge within a period of three months from the date  

of receipt/production of copy of this order.  The parties are left to bear their  

own costs.        

    ………………………..J.  (G.S. Singhvi)  

     .…….............................J. (H.L. Dattu)

New Delhi September 13, 2011.

11