Mizo Chief Council Mizoram, Thr. President Shri L. Chinzah v. Union of India & Ors.

fundamental rights enshrined in the Constitution. At this juncture, it is apposite to refer to the following observation made by this Court in Daryao & Ors v. State of U.P. & Ors., reported in 1961 SCC OnLine SC 21: “8. There can be no doubt that the fundamental right guaranteed by Article 32(1) is a very important safeguard for the protection of the fundamental rights of the citizens, and as a result of the said guarantee this Court has been entrusted with the solemn task of upholding the fundamental rights of the citizens of this country. The fundamental rights are intended not only to protect individual’s rights but they are based on high public policy. Liberty of the individual and the protection of his fundamental rights are the very essence of the democratic way of life adopted by the Constitution, and it is the privilege and the duty of this Court to uphold those rights. This Court would naturally refuse to circumscribe them or to curtail them except as provided by the Constitution itself. It is because of this aspect of the matter that in Romesh Thappar v. State of Madras in the very first year after the Constitution came into force, this Court rejected a preliminary objection raised against the competence of a petition filed under Article 32 on the ground that as a matter of orderly procedure the petitioner should first have resorted to the High Court under Article 226, and observed that “this Court is thus constituted the protector and guarantor of the fundamental rights, and it cannot, consistently with the responsibility so laid upon it, refuse to entertain applications seeking protection against infringements of such rights”. [...]” (Emphasis Supplied)

53. On similar lines, this Court in Prem Chand Garg & Anr v. The Excise Commissioner, U.P & Ors, reported in 1962 SCC OnLine SC 37, observed as follows: “2. [...]The fundamental right to move this Court can, therefore, be appropriately described as the corner-stone of the democratic edifice raised by the Constitution. That is why it is natural that this Court should, in the words

p. 103

Mizo Chief Council Mizoram, Thr, President Shri L. Chinzah v. Union of India & Ors.

of Patanjali Sastri J., regard itself “as the protector and guarantor of fundamental rights,” and should declare that “it cannot, consistently with the responsibility laid upon it, refuse to entertain applications seeking protection against infringements of such rights.” In discharging the duties assigned to it, this Court has to play the role “of a sentinel on the qui vive” and it must always regard it as its solemn duty to protect the said fundamental rights’ zealously and vigilantly. [...]” (Emphasis Supplied)

54. The overarching discourse on the doctrine of delay and laches becomes crystal clear when situated within the broader context of this Court’s constitutional duty and privilege under Article 32, as clearly enunciated in Daryao (supra) and Prem Chand (supra). This Court has consciously evolved the equitable doctrine of laches to ensure that it in no manner circumscribes or dilutes the solemn constitutional responsibility vested in it. A strict, mechanical application of delay would invariably lead to the dismissal of petitions at the very threshold, precluding any substantive adjudication of the fundamental rights claims advanced. Such an approach would be fundamentally antithetical to this Court’s role as the protector and guarantor of fundamental rights and would effectively shrink the profound duty and privilege entrusted to this Court.

(c) Application to the facts of this matter

55. Adverting to the factual matrix of the present case, a prima facie assessment might suggest that the present writ petition is barred by the doctrine of laches. Undeniably, there has been an inordinate delay of nearly six decades, given that the impugned notification was issued in the year 1955 and the present petition was instituted only in the year 2014. Furthermore, adjudicating the claims raised herein would inevitably necessitate reopening historical legal settlements that have long attained finality. However, as delineated in the preceding analysis, the mere quantum of delay or the prospect of disruption cannot be considered as sufficient reasons in themselves to bar a petition under Article 32. What is important is to gauge if the petitioner has a cogent explanation for the delay.

p. 104

56. It stands to reason that an inordinate delay spanning six decades is rarely attributable to a solitary cause. The present factual matrix is no exception. To explain its prolonged absence from this Court, the petitioner has placed reliance on a confluence of mitigating circumstances.

57. One mitigating factor is the region’s unique and tumultuous historical trajectory. In the decades immediately following Independence, the administrative and constitutional status of the area was in a state of continuous evolution. Originally administered as the Lushai Hills district within the State of Assam, the region was subsequently reorganised into the Union Territory of Mizoram under the North- Eastern Areas (Reorganisation) Act, 1971, before finally attaining full statehood in 1987. This period was simultaneously marked by significant political upheaval spanning nearly two decades in the form of an insurgency. Viewed cumulatively, these background conditions would have presented formidable practical hurdles. In such a climate of acute political unrest and chaos, claims for compensation and historical land rights are inevitably relegated to the periphery, making it exceptionally difficult for Mizo Chiefs to secure meaningful engagement with their grievances, especially within political circles.

58. Another mitigating circumstance is the Mizo Chiefs’ continuous agitation of their claims before various forums. The material on record evidences a pursuit of their grievances, thereby dispelling the notion that the chiefs were indolent or slumbering over their rights. We are, however, mindful that the mere filing of successive representations to the authorities, particularly after previous representations have been rejected or a reasonable period has elapsed, does not furnish a valid explanation to surmount the bar of laches.8

59. In the present factual matrix, while it might be contended that the chiefs persisted with administrative representations for a prolonged duration, a crucial factor warrants specific attention. On multiple occasions, respondent no. 2 (the State of Mizoram) conducted itself in a manner that engendered a legitimate expectation amongst the

8 See ¶ 5-7, State of Orissa v. Pyarimohan Samantaray & Ors. (1977) 3 SCC 396 & ¶ 6-10 & Karnataka Power Corpn. Ltd. v. K. Thangappan (2006) 4 SCC 322.

p. 105

Mizo Chief Council Mizoram, Thr, President Shri L. Chinzah v. Union of India & Ors.

chiefs that an amicable resolution was imminent, thereby obviating the immediate need for adversarial litigation. Evidence of such conduct is reflected in the official assurances tendered by the State before the Gauhati High Court, at a time when the chiefs were actively agitating for their rights. To substantiate, it would do well to look at the circumstances in which the writ appeals being pursued by the chiefs in the Gauhati High Court came to be disposed of: a. In Writ Appeal No. 69 of 1998, the Counsel for the State of Mizoram submitted that the government is considering the claim for compensation and that a suitable order would be passed shortly, in consultation with the Union of India. In lieu of this statement, the counsel for the chiefs did not press the issue further. Consequently, the High Court disposed of the matter with the observation and direction that the government of Mizoram would consider the claim of the village chief, in consultation with the Union of India, expeditiously and preferably within three months. If the chiefs were not satisfied with the order, they were entitled to seek redressal of their grievances before an appropriate forum b. Thereafter, in Writ Appeal No. 598 of 2005, once again, the Counsel for the State of Mizoram stated that the claim as espoused by the chiefs would be adjudicated afresh by the State in accordance with law. Consequently, the High Court closed the writ appeal with the direction to the government of Mizoram to consider the claim of the chiefs afresh. In the event the chiefs felt aggrieved by the decision taken by the government of Mizoram, it was left open for them to pursue such remedy as may be available under law.

60. Further fortifying this expectation is the fact that the Chief Minister of Mizoram, on at least two distinct occasions, addressed formal communications to the Prime Minister of India, espousing the chiefs’ claims for compensation. It is necessary to clarify that this Court does not construe such intergovernmental correspondence as constituting promissory estoppel against the State, being acutely aware that political communications often carry dimensions beyond the purview of judicial consideration. Nevertheless, these communications are pertinent to the extent that they signalled a sympathetic stance towards the chiefs’ grievances. Such conduct could reasonably have

p. 106

led the chiefs to hope that a resolution was forthcoming, thereby dissuading them from initiating litigation.9

61. Weighing the totality of these circumstances, this Court is conscious of the fact that the delay herein is undeniably inordinate, and the explanation offered by the petitioner is, strictly speaking, not unequivocally convincing. Nevertheless, we are not inclined to dismiss this petition at the threshold solely on the ground of delay. It is evident from the record that the State of Mizoram (respondent no.2) has held out hope for an amicable settlement and never outrightly rejected the grievances of the chiefs. It is this unique combination, the continuous representations made by the chiefs coupled with the State’s supportive stance, that understandably pushed the chiefs to seek an administrative resolution rather than immediately pursuing legal remedies. Equally significant is that, on two prior occasions when the chiefs approached the High Court, the matter was not adjudicated on the merits. Instead, owing to the ongoing dialogue between the parties, the High Court left the avenue open for the chiefs to pursue appropriate legal remedies in the future. To shut the doors on them at this third instance, without ever examining the substance of their claims, would be highly unjust.

(II) Whether any fundamental rights of the Mizo Chiefs were violated?

62. It is well settled that, for relief to be granted in a writ petition under Article 32, a case must be made out establishing the existence of a fundamental right and its breach, actual or threatened.

63. Right to property was earlier enshrined in Articles 19(1)(f) and 31 of the Constitution. It may be noted that both these provisions were repealed by the Constitution (Forty-Fourth Amendment) Act, 1978. However, the 44th Amendment is prospective in its operation, and all laws passed and executive action taken prior to 20th June 1979 will continue to be judged by and be subject to the provisions of Part III, including Articles 19(1)(f) and 31.

64. Article 19(1)(f) guaranteed to the Indian citizens a right to acquire, hold, and dispose of property. Article 19(5), however, permitted the

9 See ¶ 21, P.C. Sethi v. Union of India (1975) 4 SCC 67 & ¶ 16, Purshottam Lal v. Union of India (1973) 1 SCC 651.

p. 107

Mizo Chief Council Mizoram, Thr, President Shri L. Chinzah v. Union of India & Ors.

State to impose by law reasonable restrictions on this right in the interests of the general public or for the protection of the interests of any Scheduled Tribe. Article 31(1) laid down that no person could be deprived of his property without the authority of law. Article 31(2), on the other hand, underwent significant change and was the focal point of multiple constitutional amendments. Article 31(2) as it stood when it was originally enacted and Article 31(2) as it stood before its abrogation in 1978, are reproduced below: “Article 31(2) at the time of enactment of the Indian Constitution No property, movable or immovable, including any interest in, or in any company owning, any commercial or industrial undertaking, shall be taken possession of or acquired for public purposes under any law authorising the taking of such possession or such acquisition, unless the law provides for compensation for the property taken possession of or acquired and either fixes the amount of the compensation, or specifies the principles on which, and the manner in which, the compensation is to be determined and given.

Article 31(2) as it stood before its abrogation in 1978 No property shall be compulsorily acquired or requisitioned save for a public purpose and save by authority of a law which provides for acquisition or requisitioning of the property for an amount which may be fixed by such law or which may be determined in accordance with such principles and given in such manner as may be specified in such law, and no such law shall be called in question in any court on the ground that the amount so fixed or determined is not adequate or that the whole or any part of such amount is to be given otherwise than in cash.”

65. In the present case, the central dispute concerns the alleged violation of the Mizo Chiefs’ right to property, as guaranteed under Articles 19(1)(f) and 31 of the Constitution, respectively. The petitioner claims this right was breached either because the Mizo Chiefs were deprived

p. 108

of their lands without lawful authority, or because the compensation paid to them was wholly ‘illusory’. Given that the impugned actions of the respondents occurred at a time when the right to property was a fundamental right under Part III, and considering that the Constitution (Forty-fourth Amendment) Act, 1978, operates only prospectively, the right to property was firmly in existence at the relevant time. Consequently, the existence of a fundamental right, as is required for invoking and claiming relief under Article 32, stands satisfied.

66. It is established that who bears the burden of proof in cases where fundamental rights violations are alleged depends on the fundamental right alleged to have been violated. The same burden of proof rule will not apply to all fundamental rights violation challenges.10 However, in cases such as the present one, the initial burden is on the petitioner to satisfy the Court and make out a case for an invasion of their fundamental right(s).11

67. To discharge this initial burden and successfully establish a violation of their fundamental right to property, the petitioner must necessarily succeed on two distinct fronts. First and foremost, it must prove a clear title of the Mizo Chiefs over the subject lands, which, in the context of its sweeping claim, effectively encompasses the entire territorial expanse of the present-day State of Mizoram.12 To establish such a title, the petitioner must conclusively demonstrate that, under the chieftainship system, as it operated during the British regime, the Mizo Chiefs held complete ownership of the land, rather than merely functioning as local administrative heads. Secondly, and only upon proving the ownership as aforesaid, the petitioner must satisfy the other parameters under Article 31. This includes, amongst other things, proving that the respondents deprived the chiefs of their property without lawful authority, or that the property was acquired without providing due compensation.

68. In an effort to discharge the burden of establishing title to the land, the petitioners have primarily relied on accounts and writings of scholars and officials of the British government. Upon a meticulous

10 See ¶ 15-29, Deena & Ors. v. Union of India (1983) 4 SCC 645. 11 See ¶ 5, A. Hamsaveni & Ors. v. State of Tamil Nadu & Anr. (1994) 6 SCC 51. 12 See ¶ 4, Bokaro and Ramgur Ltd. v. State of Bihar, 1962 SCC OnLine SC 379.

p. 109

Mizo Chief Council Mizoram, Thr, President Shri L. Chinzah v. Union of India & Ors.

perusal of the said material, it is, at the very outset, highly ambiguous whether these texts unequivocally recognise the Mizo Chiefs as the absolute owners of the land. Furthermore, even assuming that such an interpretation could be culled from these writings, the petitioners have advanced no compelling justification as to why such writings and accounts should be elevated to the status of conclusive evidentiary proof. It is legally untenable for this Court to rest a decision of such magnitude on the fragile foundation of such flimsy submissions and woefully inadequate proof.

69. The material adduced by the respondent, at least on a prima facie examination, indicates that during the British administration of the Lushai Hills district, the title over the land never vested in the Chiefs. Furthermore, the record before us is bereft of any comprehensive compilation or analysis of the boundary papers issued to the Chiefs, nor is it established that these documents were uniform in their conferment of rights and duties. However, an examination of the boundary paper available on record entirely belies the petitioner’s claim, as nothing therein even remotely suggests the conferment or recognition of absolute ownership of land. Consequently, we are constrained to hold that the petitioners have woefully failed to discharge their burden of proving title over the subject lands.

70. We are cognisant that, unlike in modern times, establishing land title from the pre-independence era, especially within a traditional chieftainship system, rarely involves a neat or conclusive paper trail. However, given the sheer magnitude of the petitioner’s claims, it is only reasonable to expect a much deeper historical investigation on its part. To substantiate such an extravagant demand, the petitioner ought to have relied on alternative sources of evidence, such as government documents, official notifications, and administrative orders, to build a coherent understanding of their alleged title. Both sides have failed to present a continuous, documented chain of events that would clearly map out the status of the land at different periods.

71. Furthermore, the constitutional jurisprudence governing the right to property, particularly under the erstwhile Article 31, is deeply intricate and has been the subject of extensive judicial exposition. Consequently, apart from establishing ownership, there are other

p. 110

aspects to the right to property that the petitioner had to prove thoroughly. For instance, while the petitioner baldly asserts that the statutory compensation disbursed to the Mizo Chiefs was ‘illusory’, they have entirely failed to traverse the plethora of legal precedents rendered by this Court that delineate the parameters for determining when compensation becomes legally illusory. Moreover, the pleadings are silent on how this specific claim interacts with the broader constitutional framework of property rights under Part III, or on how it reconciles with other legislation in force in the then State of Assam. In essence, the petitioner has approached a profoundly complex legal issue in a simplistic and superficial manner.

72. The petitioner has further advanced a plea of discrimination, contending that the Mizo Chiefs stood on an equal historical footing with the rulers of the erstwhile Princely States. They argue that the State’s failure to grant them comparable compensation or privy purses is manifestly arbitrary and violative of their fundamental rights. However, this assertion, much like its above claims, is entirely devoid of any legal basis and thereby merits outright rejection. The privy purses and other privileges granted to the erstwhile rulers of the Princely States were the direct outcome of specific, pre-constitutional political and contractual arrangements negotiated between those rulers and the Government. Consequently, it would be legally flawed to equate and elevate these entitlements to the status of a right, which all erstwhile rulers were constitutionally bestowed upon. Such political arrangements cannot be claimed as a matter of a legally enforceable right, much less a fundamental right.

73. The petitioner has also contended that the State of Assam (the parent State in 1954) lacked legislative jurisdiction to enact the Act,

1954. However, as the petitioner has not discharged its burden of establishing any violation of the fundamental rights of the chiefs, we do not deem it necessary to address the vires of the Act, 1954 or the legality of the impugned notification in this present writ petition.

74. Therefore, having considered the matter from all vantage points, the inescapable conclusion is that the petitioner has not been able to establish any violation of the fundamental rights of the Mizo Chiefs in the present matter. Consequently, the petitioner is not entitled to any of the reliefs sought herein.

p. 111

Mizo Chief Council Mizoram, Thr, President Shri L. Chinzah v. Union of India & Ors.

75. For all the foregoing reasons, this writ petition is accordingly dismissed.

76. Pending applications, if any, shall also stand dismissed.

Result of the case: Writ Petition Dismissed.