Page No.# 1/24

GAHC030001112026

THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT

(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)

Case No. : Arb.A./7/2026

Sh. K. Lalhlupuia and 62 Ors.

R/o Bilkhawthlir, Kolasib District, Mizoram, Pin-796081

2: Sh. Lalthankima

3: Smt. Lalrinchhani

4: Sh. Lalengkima

5: Sh. Ralliana

6: Sh. R. Lengkunga

7: Sh. Lalbiakchhunga

8: Smt. Vulchuailovi

9: Smt. Lalnunmawii

10: Sh. Laldawngliana

11: Sh. Rangkhuma

12: Smt. Lalmalsawmi

Page No.# 2/24

13: Smt. Lalsangliani

14: Sh. Huapliana

15: Sh. Zorempara

16: Sh. R. Vanlalkunga

17: Smt. H. Zoremthangi

18: Sh. Rongeta

19: Sh. Zomuankima

20: Sh. K. Lalnghakliana

21: Sh. Siamthanga

22: Sh. H. Lalrinhlua

23: Sh. Lalhmingchhuanga

24: Sh. K. Lalnunpuia

25: Sh. Ringliana

26: Sh. Lalrinkima

27: Sh. Zaithanmawia

28: Sh. Lallawmkima Ngente

Page No.# 3/24

29: Sh. H. Lalnunchama

30: Sh. Lalnunfela Pachuau

31: Smt. Helen Zosangpuii

32: Khualmawi YMA

33: Smt. Vanhlupuii

34: Sh. F. Lalmuanpuia

35: Sh. Lalmalsawma Ngente

36: Smt. Lalchhuanawmi

37: Smt. K. Laltlanthangi

38: Sh. R. Vanlalzawma

39: Smt. Thinlaihnemi

40: Smt. R.V. Lalthanmawii

41: Sh. R. Vanlalawia

42: Smt. R. Lallianpuii

43: Smt. Zodingpuii

44: Sh. Joseph Lalrohlua

Page No.# 4/24

45: Sh. Zomuanpuia

46: Sh. Lalruatkima

47: Sh. Lallawmawma Varte

48: Smt. R. Lalfakzuali

49: Sh. R. Vanlalrawna

50: Sh. Lalbiakdika

51: Smt. Lalthansangi

52: Smt. R. Lalengmawii

53: Sh. Hriamkama

54: Sh. Liankunga

55: Sh. R. Vanlalrawna

56: Smt. Rebeki

57: Sh. Hrangthanzuala

58: Sh. Zonunthara

59: Sh. Zonunthanga

60: Smt. Lalhlimpuii

Page No.# 5/24

61: Sh. Lalmuankima

62: Sh. C.N. Kunga

63: Sh. Lalrochung

VERSUS

The Competent Authority for Land Acquisition (CALA) and Anr.

Kolasib District/ Deputy Commissioner, Kolasib District, Mizoram, Pin-796081

2:Managing Directo

Advocate for the appellant : Mr. Lalthangmawia, …Advocate.

Advocate for the respondent : Mr. Kartik Jain, …Advocate.

:::BEFORE:::

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MICHAEL ZOTHANKHUMA

Date on which judgment is reserved : 03.06.2026

Date of pronouncement of judgment : 10.06.2026

Whether the pronouncement is of the : N/A

operative part of the judgment ?

Whether the full judgment has been : Yes

pronounced?

JUDGMENT & ORDER (CAV)

Heard Mr. Lalthangmawia, learned counsel for the appellants and Mr.

Kartik Jain, learned counsel for the NHIDCL.

Page No.# 6/24

2. The appellants are aggrieved with the non-payment of compensation for

land value, in respect of the acquisition of the lands of the appellants, which are

covered by Village Council’s passes.

3. The appellants case is that an Award under Section 3G of the National

Highway Act, 1956 (herein after referred to as ‘NH Act’) was issued wherein,

compensation had been provided to the appellants for the crops and trees

standing on their lands. However, as no compensation for the acquired lands

had been given, they submit that the respondents are bound to give

compensation for the lands in view of Article 300A of the Constitution. The

appellants counsel thus submits that the Award under 3G, in so far as it has

denied compensation for land value, is bad in law. Further, the Arbitrator’s

Award dated 05.09.2025 passed by the learned Arbitrator and the impugned

Judgment & Order dated 03.11.2025 passed by the learned Addl. District &

Sessions Judge, Kolasib in Arbitration Petition No. 3/2023 should also be set

aside. The appellants counsel thus prays that a direction should be issued to the

respondents to pay compensation for land value to the appellants, due to

acquisition of their lands covered by Village Council Passes, issued for

agricultural purposes/garden.

4. The counsel for the appellants further submits that the question whether

Page No.# 7/24

the Village Council Passes were valid or not cannot be gone into, when the lands

of the appellants have been notified and find place in the Award made under

Section 3G of the NH Act, for payment of compensation for acquisition of land.

In this respect, he has relied upon the Judgment dated 17.10.2016 passed in

WP(C) 141/2016, Shri. Lalbiaktluanga Vs. State of Mizoram and 4 Ors.

5. I have heard the counsels for the parties. As can be seen from the

records, the appellants were amongst a number of persons who were to be

given compensation as per the Award made under 3G of the NH Act. While a

number of persons were given compensation for crops, trees and the value of

their land, 75 persons including the appellants herein, were given compensation

only for crops and trees. They were not given compensation for their land, as

their land were allotted to them by the Village Council, vide VC Passes, for

garden/agricultural purposes, though the Village Council were not competent to

issue VC Passes for garden/agricultural purposes.

6. Being aggrieved with the Award made under 3G of the NH Act dated

10.01.2023, which excluded them from receiving compensation for land, the 75

persons including the 63 appellants herein, went for Arbitration under Section

3G(5) of the NH Act, praying for payment of compensation for the value of their

lands, which had been denied to them.

Page No.# 8/24

7. The learned Arbitrator thereafter, passed its Arbitration Award dated

05.09.2026, by holding that 2 out of the 75 persons had their cases already

decided in Arbitration Case NH-306/Klb/3/Arb-2023 and as such, those cases

were not required to be decided any further. With respect to another 3 persons,

the learned Arbitrator found that those 3 persons were holding lands covered by

Periodic Pattas, due to which they were entitled to payment of compensation

with interest for the value of their lands. In respect of another 8 persons, the

learned Arbitrator found that the house passes issued to those 8 persons were

for house sites and they had been regularized, besides their VC Passes had been

clearly entered in the Village Council minute books.

However, for the remaining persons, including the appellants

herein, the learned Arbitrator found that their names did not exist in the Village

Council meeting minute Books and as such, were not entitled to any

compensation for their lands.

8. Being aggrieved with the rejection of their prayer for payment of the

compensation for the value of their lands, the appellant preferred an appeal

under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Reconciliation Act 1996 (herein after

referred to as Arbitration Act), claiming compensation for the value of their

lands, which was registered as Arbitration Petition No. 3/2023.

Page No.# 9/24

9. The Addl. District & Session Judge, Aizawl, Judicial District, Kolasib,

thereafter, disposed of Arbitration petition No. 3/2023, vide the impugned

Judgment & Order dated 03.11.2025, by holding that the Village Council passes

of the appellants were not regularized and not found in the Village Council

minutes books and as such, were not entitled to compensation for the value of

their lands. The learned Civil Court thus held that it found no reason to interfere

with the Arbitration Award in terms of Section 34 of the Arbitration Act.

10. The appellants have now approached this Court under Section 37 of the

Arbitration Act. When the Village Council Passes (VC Pass) in respect of the

appellants lands are not found in the Registers of the Village Council concerned,

it cannot be said that the land was allotted by the Village Council. There has to

be proof of allotment of land in the Village Council Registers. The names of the

Village Council members allotting land to a person/body has to be recorded in

the VC Books/Registers. In the absence of the same, it cannot be said that the

Village Council (VC) has allotted land to any person/body. The date and time of

the VC meeting has also to be mentioned in the VC Registers. When there is

nothing in the VC Registers showing allotment of land to the appellants, this

Court does not find any infirmity in the respondents not giving compensation for

the land to the appellants. The title to the land cannot be said to be with the

Page No.# 10/24

appellants and the same vests with the Government. Accordingly, this Court

does not find any ground to interfere with the Arbitral Award or the impugned

judgment and order.

11. The above being said, there is another aspect of the matter which has to

be considered. There are different types of land holdings covered by different

types of Land Passes in the State of Mizoram. They are land Settlement

Certificates, Periodic Pattas, Lease and Village Council passes. Section 3 of the

Lushai Hills District (House Sites) Act, 1953 provides for allotment of house sites

and other non-agricultural purposes, with the exception of shops and stalls by

the Village Councils.

12. Section 3 of the Lushai Hills District (House site) Act, 1953 is as follows:-

“3. Allotment of sites: -1) Subject to the provisions of sub-section (2) of

this section, a Village Council shall be competent to allot sites within its

jurisdiction for residential and other non-agricultural purposes with the

exception of shops and stalls which include hotels and other business houses of

the same nature.

Notwithstanding anything contained in this act, the Administrator shall

have the power to intervene in all cases of disputes over any sites within the

village, and the decision of the Administrator shall be final.

Page No.# 11/24

that the Administrator may, at any time by notification, declare that any

village or a particular locality is a protected area where allotment of sites shall

be done by Village Council only with the previous approval of the Administrator.

2) The Administrator or any person or body authorized in that behalf by

the Administrator shall allot sites for residential and other non-agricultural

purposes in Aizawl, Lunglei, Demagiri, Sairang, Kolasib, Champhai and N.

Vanlaiphai and also sites for shops and stalls which may include hotels and

other business houses of the like nature in places other than the said stations.

3) The Village Council, when site is allotted under sub-section (1) and the

Administrator or any other person or body, authorized in that behalf by the

Administrator when the site is allotted under sub-section (2) shall issue a patta

and may incorporate therein in writing such conditions as may be reasonable in

the interest of general public or a Scheduled Tribe.

4) The authority issuing the patta on being satisfied on proof that any

such condition or conditions incorporated in the Patta have been violated may

cancel the Patta.

Provided that such authority instead of cancelling the Patta may impose a

fine, when such authority is a Village Council, not exceeding Rs. 50/- and when

the authority is the Administrator or any other person or body authorized in that

behalf by the Administrator, not exceeding Rs. 100/-

5) No person shall occupy any site without obtaining a Patta from a

competent authority as prescribed in sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) as the

case may be

Page No.# 12/24

6) The Village Council when the site is allotted under sub-section (1) the

Administrator or any other person or body authorized in that behalf by the

Administrator when it is allotted under sub-section (2) may evict any person

having in occupation of unauthorized site after service on such unauthorized

occupant of a notice to vacate the site within a period of not less than 7 days.

7) On failure of such unauthorized occupant to vacate the site within the

time fixed in the notice Village Council or Administrator or any other person or

body authorized by the Administrator in that behalf, may order for demolition of

the building or impose a fine not exceeding Rs. 5/- per day for the unauthorized

occupation after the service of the notice.

8) The order of the Administrator of a Village Council as the case may be,

passed under clauses (6) and (7) above shall be deemed to be a decree of a

competent civil court to which this Act applies."

13. Thus, from a reading of Section 3 of the 1953 Act, it is clear that a Village

Council has the power to allot house sites for residential and other non-

agricultural purposes within its jurisdiction. It cannot allot any pass for

garden/agricultural purposes. Thus, only a Village Council house site pass would

be a valid pass and acquisition of land covered by a Village Council House Site

Pass would make the land owner, entitled to payment of compensation for the

land. If a Village Council pass is issued for garden/agriculture purposes, the

same being an invalid pass, the holder of the same cannot claim any

Page No.# 13/24

compensation for the land value, for the simple reason that he cannot be said to

be the owner of the said land.

14. The 1953 Act was thereafter repealed by the Mizoram (Land Revenue)

Act, 2013 herein referred to as the “2013 Act”, which came into effect on

02.05.2013. Section 39 of the 2013 Act provides that in a village where a site

plan has been made, house sites may be allotted by the Village Council by

giving a house pass, which should not exceed 1337.80 square meters or one

bigha. There is no provision even in the 2013 Act for allotment of land by a

Village Council for garden or agricultural purposes. Further, Section 27 of the

2013 Act provides that a pass holder shall have no right in the land held by him,

beyond the rights of use and occupancy for such period and under such terms

and conditions, as may be specified in the pass. The pass holder shall have no

right of transfer, inheritance, or subletting beyond the period so specified in the

pass. If there is no period specified in the pass for right of use and occupancy,

the validity of the pass shall be deemed to be for a period not exceeding five

years, unless the same is renewed. A reading of the 2013 Act also shows that

the Village Council has no right to allot any land for purposes other than a

house site, not exceeding one bigha.

15. The land laws that were/are applicable at the time of issuance of the

Page No.# 14/24

Village Council passes of the appellants, shows that they were invalid passes,

inasmuch as, it is also the case of the appellants that the Village Council (VC)

passes issued to them were for agricultural purposes. Thus, the Village Council's

Garden Passes of the appellants being invalid and dehors the land laws of the

State, no compensation for land (land value) can be given to the appellants. The

appellants cannot be said to be the legal or bonafide owners of the lands

covered by Village Council Passes issued for garden/agricultural purposes.

16. Sections 27 and 39 of the 2013 Act states as follows:-

Section 27

Rights of a Pass-holder

A Pass-holder shall have no right in the land held by him beyond the

rights of use and occupancy for such period and under such terms and

conditions as may be specified in the Pass and shall have no right of transfer,

inheritance, or of sub-letting beyond the period so specified. Provided that

where no period has been specified in the existing Pass, the validity of such

Pass shall, unless renewed, be deemed to have continued as a valid Pass for a

period not exceeding five years from the date of commencement of this Act.

Section 39

Allotment of House-Sites

(1) In the village where site plan have been done, house sites may be allotted

by the Village Council by giving a House Pass. The area of House Pass per

family to be allotted by the Village Council will not exceed 1337.80 sq.metre or

Page No.# 15/24

1 bigha.

(2)In an area where settlement operation has been done, the competent

Revenue Officer may, with prior sanction of the Government, allot house-sites

by giving a House Pass having an area not exceeding 1337 square metre per

family.

Provided that the land document shall contain clear geographical

description (including macro and micro mapping), distinguishable boundary

description accompanied by boundary pillars and accurate measurement of the

area duly recorded.

17. With regard to the contention of the appellants counsel that in terms of

the judgment passed in WP(C) No. 141 of 2016, “Shri Lalremtluanga &

109 ors. Vs. State of Mizoram & 2 ors”, and in W.A No 200 of 2015, the

issue whether the appellants Village Council Passes are valid or not, cannot be

gone into, once the names of the recipients for compensation are included in

the Award under Section 3G of the NH Act, this Court finds that the present

Award does not recognize the appellants to be the legal owners of the lands

covered by the Village Council Passes given for garden/agricultural purposes.

That is why compensation for land has not been given to them. They have only

been given compensation for crops and trees, which could be due to

humanitarian reasons, as they were cultivating the land and using it for

agricultural purposes. No right can be said to accrue to the appellants beyond

what the law provides. The facts in this case and in the above cases are

Page No.# 16/24

different. Though it is true that the Division Bench vide Order dated 08.10.2015

passed in WA No. 200/2015, held that once enhancement of compensation for

land is to be considered under Section 28A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894,

the question of application of Section 3 of 1953 Act cannot arise, the facts

herein are slightly different. In W.A No. 200/2015, some land owners who had

been awarded compensation for their lands in terms of Award No. 1/2012 and

who were not satisfied with the compensation given for their lands, approached

the Reference Court under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The

Reference Court enhanced the compensation amount payable to the land

owners. The appellants in WA No. 200/2015, who were also land owners in

terms of Award No. 1/2012 and who had not availed of Section 18 of the Land

Acquisition Act, 1894, sought enhancement of their compensation amount for

the land under Section 28A of the L.A Act, 1894, in terms of the relief given to

those persons by the Reference Court under Section 18 of the LA Act, 1894.

Their claim for enhancement of the compensation amount on land value was on

the ground that they were similarly placed as those persons who had

approached the Reference Court and that they had all been a part of the same

Award. As the case of the appellants in W.A No. 200/2015 was not being

considered for enhancement of the compensation amount under Section 28A of

the LA Act, 1894, they approached this Court by way of WP(C) 80/2015. This

Page No.# 17/24

Court, vide Judgment & Order dated 26.06.2015 disposed of WP(C) 80/2015, by

holding that Section 3 of the 1953 Act provided for allotment of land by the

Village Councils only for residential and other non-agricultural purposes.

However, as the appellants in WA No. 200/2015 had been given land for

garden/agricultural purposes by the Village Council, which was in violation of

Section 3 of the 1953 Act, they could not be given compensation for land, as

they were not owners of the land. Being aggrieved, the writ petitioners in WP(C)

No. 80/2015 approached the Division Bench of this Court by way of WA No.

200/2015, wherein the Division Bench held that where the issue was only with

regard to enhancement of compensation for land under Section 28A of the LA

Act, 1894, the question of applicability of Section 3 of the 1953 Act cannot be

gone into. It should also be noted that the observation of the Single Judge in

WP(C) No. 80/2015, that persons having lands covered by Village Council

passes for agricultural purposes, cannot be entitled to compensation for the

value of the lands, in view of Section 3 of the 1953 Act, had not been disturbed

by the Division Bench in WA No. 200/2015. Thus, a reading of the above two

judgments show that when compensation has already been given for land value,

in terms of an Award to the landowners, even in respect of land allotted under

V.C. Passes for agricultural purposes, the question of applicability of Section 3 of

the 1953 Act cannot be gone into, when the issue pertains to enhancement of

Page No.# 18/24

the land compensation under Section 28A, when they have been given

compensation by an Award made under Section 11 of the L.A. Act, 1894.

18. In the present case, the appellants were given compensation only for

their crops and trees on the lands that they were using. They were not given

compensation for the land. As such, the appellants herein have not asked for

enhancement of the compensation for the land. They have only asked for

compensation for the land, which has been rightly denied to them. The lands

were, however, never the appellants' land. The Village Council passes had been

issued to the appellants for agricultural purposes and as such, were invalid

passes. The compensation given for crops and trees to the appellants was

probably given to them out of humanitarian considerations and not on the basis

of the land laws in the State. If this Court is to take a view that the lands given

to the appellants by way of VC passes for garden/agricultural purposes are valid

Passes, the same would amount to validating a void/invalid act. Further, the

Division Bench in WA No. 200/2015 did not disturb the finding of the Single

Bench in WP(C) No. 80/2015, wherein it had been held that the Village Councils

were not competent to allot land for garden/ agricultural purposes.

19. In WP(C) No. 141/2016 “Sh. A.H. Lalbiaktluanga Vs. State of

Mizoram & 4 Ors.,” a Single Bench of this Court held that the Division Bench

Page No.# 19/24

Order dated 08.10.2015 passed in WA No. 200/2015, was that once the land

owners sought enhancement of the compensation amount under Section 28A,

the question of application of Section 3 of the 1953 Act cannot be gone into.

This Court in the above case [WP(C) No. 141/2016] held that the import of the

order dated 08.10.2015 in W.A No. 200/2015 was that once land covered by V.C

Passes had been included in an Award made under the L.A. Act, 1894, the

question of whether they were valid or not cannot be gone into at a later stage.

The last six lines of Para 12 of the judgment passed in WP(C) No. 141/2016,

would have to be read in conjunction with the Order dated 08.10.2015 passed

by the Division Bench in WA No. 200/2015, as it derives it’s colour and context

from the same.

20. The Order dated 08.10.2015 passed in WA No. 200/2015 and para 12 of the

judgment passed in WP(C) No. 141/2016 are as follows:

Order dated 08.10.2025 in WA No. 200/2015

“Heard the appellants and the respondents.

Appellants are aggrieved by the observations made by the learned Single

Judge in the order dated 26th June, 2015 in WP(C) 80/2015 with regard to the

applicability of Section 3 of the Lushai Hills District (House site) Act, 1953.

It is the case of the appellants that their lands have been acquired by the

railways and compensation has been determined by the land acquisition officer

Page No.# 20/24

and accordingly paid. In reference, the Civil Court enhanced the compensation.

It is the contention of the appellants that whatever amount enhanced by

the Civil Court in reference the amount awarded in the reference should be

uniformly paid to the land owners whose lands have been acquired under the

same notification.

Therefore in view of the provisions of Section 28A of the Land Acquisition

Acquisition Act, 1894 the appellants sought a mandamus against the Collector

to pay the compensation according to the award made by the Civil Court.

Appellants have been awarded compensation determined by the land acquisition

officer.

Appellants now seek the enhanced compensation fixed by the reference

court as required under Section 28A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The

question application of Section 3 of the Lushai Hills District (House Site) Act,

1953 does not arise. In that view of the matter the writ appeal is allowed. The

Collector shall pay compensation as required under Section 28A of the Land

Acquisition Act, 1894 within three months from the date of receipt of the copy

of this order.”

Para 12 of the Judgment in WP(C) No. 141/2016

“12. A reading of the Order dated 8.10.2015 passed in WA No. 200/2015,

implies that the Division Bench has held that the question of application of

Section 3 of the Lushai Hills District (House Site). Act, 1953, cannot be gone

into when the land owners seek enhancement of their compensation amount by

the Reference Court under Section 28(a) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.

Thus, the Division Bench in WA No. 200/2015 has not disturbed the finding of

Page No.# 21/24

the Single Bench in WP(C) No. 80/2015, with regard to the law laid down that

Village Council's are not competent to allot land for agricultural purposes. The

import of the Division Bench Order dated 8.10.2015 in WA No. 200/2015 is to

the effect that, once land covered by Village Council Passes have been included

in an Award made under Land Acquisition Act, 1894, the question of whether

they are valid or not, cannot be gone into at a subsequent stage.”

...

As stated earlier, the last six lines of para 12 of the Judgment passed in

WP(C) No. 141/2016 would have to be read in line with the colour and context

of the rest of paragraph 12, i.e. only when the question of enhancement of

compensation for land value under Section 28A is to be decided, the applicability

of Section 3 of the 1953 cannot be gone into.

21. In the case of “People’s Right to Information and Development

Implementation Society of Mizoram (PRISM) Vs. The State of Mizoram

& Anr.”, WP(C) No. 5993/2014 (GAU) re-numbered as WP(C) no. 74/2016 (AB),

the Division Bench of this court held that Section 3 of the 1953 Act gave power

to the Village Council to allot sites within its jurisdiction, only for residential and

other non-agricultural purposes. The Village Councils do not have the power to

allot land for agriculture purposes under the Mizo District (Agricultural Land)

Act, 1953. Thus, from a reading of the above judgments of this Court, it is quite

clear that the appellants who are claiming compensation for land value on the

Page No.# 22/24

basis of their Village Council Garden Passes, are not entitled to the same, as the

passes are invalid and/or void.

With respect to the question of allotment of agricultural land, the same is

provided under the Mizo District (Agricultural Land) Act, 1963. Further, for

Jhumming purposes, there is the Lushai Hills District (Jhumming) Regulation,

1954, which provides land to villagers for use for short periods of one to two

years only.

22. An Arbitral Award can be set aside, only in terms of Section 34 of the

Arbitration Act.

23. As the ground taken by the appellants for challenging the Arbitral Award

and the impugned judgment & order passed by the learned Civil Court do not

come within the provisions of Section 34 of the Arbitration Act, this Court does

not find any grounds to allow the present appeal. It may again be reiterated

that when there is no record of land being allotted to the appellants by way of

Village Council passes in the Village Council registers/records, it cannot be said

that the appellants were allotted land by the Village Council. Land allotment by

a Village Council has to be done during the sitting of the Village Council

members. If all the Village Council members cannot participate in a particular

Page No.# 23/24

meeting for allotting land to villagers, at least the majority of the members of

the concerned Village Council have to be present in the meeting. A decision to

allot land to a person in the meeting of the Village Council has to be reflected in

writing in the meeting minutes and recorded in the VC registers, signed by the

members of the Village Council who attended the meeting. Unless there is the

record of the meeting of the Village Council members allotting land to a

particular person, it cannot be said that land has been allotted to a particular

person. It is only after there is a record of the meeting minutes of allotment of

land by the Village Council in the Village Council register, that a person can be

said to be allotted land by the Village Council. When there is no record in the

Village Council register showing that land had been allotted to the appellants, it

cannot be said that they have been allotted land by the Village Council. The

Village Council cannot allot land in the absence of any meeting minutes/decision

of the Village Council, which should made by not less than 50% of the Village

Council. Allotment of land cannot be done/made by a single Village Council

member, whether it be the President or the Secretary of the Village Council,

unless a majority of the members of the Village Council have allotted the land

and the same is recorded in the Village Council register. In the present case, the

Village Council register does not have a record of allotment of land or the Village

Council Passes to the appellants, which is reflected in the Arbitral Award. The

Page No.# 24/24

Arbitral Award has also been upheld by the learned Civil Court, while deciding

the application under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act.

24. In view of the reasons stated above, this Court does not find any infirmity

in the decisions of the learned Arbitrator and the learned Civil Court.

25. The appeal is accordingly dismissed.

26. Send back the records.

JUDGE

Comparing Assistant