Gauhati High Court Orders Mizoram to Proceed with Land Acquisition Under Central Act; Rules State Law Invalid Due to Absence of Presidential Assent, Article 14 Breach, and Article 371(G) Constraints

Court’s Decision: The Gauhati High Court dismissed appeals by the State of Mizoram, upholding the single judge’s directive that land acquisition proceedings initiated under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (Act of 2013) should proceed. The court ruled that the Mizoram Land Acquisition Act, lacking Presidential assent and being less beneficial than the central law, could not apply.

Facts: The case revolves around land in Lunglawn, Lunglei District, Mizoram, occupied by the Assam Rifles since 1966. Initially, rent was paid to the landowners from 1966 to 1986, but subsequent payments ceased. This led landowners to file petitions seeking either the return of their lands or fair compensation. In response to court orders, the Mizoram Government began acquisition proceedings in 2012 under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. With the enactment of the Act of 2013, the private respondents sought compensation under this new law, which they argued provided more favorable terms.

Issues:

1. Whether the Act of 2013 applies in Mizoram, given the special protections under Article 371(G).
2. Whether the Mizoram Land Acquisition Act, enacted without Presidential assent and offering lower benefits, could validly substitute the Act of 2013 in Mizoram.

Petitioner’s Arguments: The petitioners argued that the Mizoram Land Acquisition Act, being less beneficial and unendorsed by the President, could not supersede the Act of 2013. They cited instances where Mizoram applied the central act in similar situations, highlighting the discriminatory nature of denying them the same benefits.

Respondent’s Arguments: The State of Mizoram contended that, due to Article 371(G), the Act of 2013, which pertains to “ownership and transfer of land,” could not apply without the state legislature’s consent. The State further argued that the single judge overstepped by implicitly invalidating the Mizoram Act, which was beyond his jurisdiction.

Analysis of the Law: The court examined Article 371(G) and the implications of the concurrent powers under Entry 42 of the Concurrent List in the Seventh Schedule. It noted that although the Mizoram Land Acquisition Act aimed to address land acquisition, it conflicted with the central Act of 2013, which held greater applicability without Presidential assent.

Precedent Analysis: The court referenced cases such as Vijay Kumar Sharma v. State of Karnataka and Dr. M. Ismail Faruqui v. Union of India, highlighting principles on legislative competence, repugnancy, and the applicability of central laws in states with special constitutional protections.

Court’s Reasoning: The court reasoned that the central law, designed to ensure fair compensation, could not be disregarded in favor of a state law that lacked assent and was less favorable. It further asserted that the Mizoram Land Acquisition Act’s applicability would violate Article 14 by allowing differential treatment of landowners.

Conclusion: The appeals were dismissed, affirming that the Act of 2013 applies in Mizoram. The Mizoram Land Acquisition Act, due to its repugnancy and lack of Presidential assent, could not be enforced.

Implications: This decision underscores the precedence of central laws over state legislation, especially when state laws are less beneficial and lack the requisite constitutional endorsements. It reaffirms protections for property owners under national standards for land acquisition and compensation.

Also Read – Karnataka High Court Dismisses Petitions for Enhanced Compensation and Conviction Reversal in Cheque Dishonor Case, Emphasizes Timely Appeal Requirement and Upholds Statutory Presumption