1) Smt. Birolla S. Sangma vs . State Of Meghalaya & Ors. on 14 August, 2018

[Cites 3, Cited by 1]

Meghalaya High Court

1) Smt. Birolla S. Sangma vs . State Of Meghalaya & Ors. on 14 August, 2018

Bench: Mohammad Yaqoob Mir

Serial No. 03 - 14      HIGH COURT OF MEGHALAYA
Regular List                   AT SHILLONG

(1) WP(C) No. 264/2018 (2) WP(C) No. 265/2018 (3) WP(C) No. 266/2018
(4) WP(C) No. 267/2018 (5) WP(C) No. 268/ 2018 (6) WP(C) No. 269/2018
(7) WP(C) No. 270/2018 (8) WP(C) No. 271/2018 (9) WP(C) No. 272/2018
(10)WP(C) No. 273/2018 (11) WP(C) No. 274/2018 (12) WP(C) No. 275/2018

                                                       Date of order: 14.08.2018
1) Smt. Birolla S. Sangma     Vs.              State of Meghalaya & Ors.
2) Smt. Chilla Marak          Vs.              State of Meghalaya & Ors.
3) Smt. Meje N Sangma         Vs.              State of Meghalaya & Ors.
4) Smt. Sarika N Sangma       Vs.              State of Meghalaya & Ors.
5) Smt. Minna N Sangma        Vs.              State of Meghalaya & Ors.
6) Shri Arkith Momin          Vs.              State of Meghalaya & Ors.
7) Smt. Sabina Momin          Vs.              State of Meghalaya & Ors.
8) Shri Goringbath Momin      Vs.              State of Meghalaya & Ors.
9) Shri Raksrang Sangma       Vs.              State of Meghalaya & Ors.
10) Shri Rotil Sangma         Vs.              State of Meghalaya & Ors.
11) Shri Batchan W Momin      Vs.              State of Meghalaya & Ors.
12) Smt. Kamla Sangma         Vs.              State of Meghalaya & Ors.
Coram:
       Hon'ble Mr. Justice Mohammad Yaqoob Mir, Chief Justice

Appearance:
For the Petitioner/Appellant(s) :     Mr. A.H. Hazarika, Adv. with
                                      Ms. A.P. Kharsahnoh, Adv. and
                                      Ms. D. Mawthoh, Adv.
For the Respondent(s)            :    Mrs. S. Bhattacharjee. GA with

Mr. T.L. Jyrwa, GA Mr. R. Gurung, GA Mr. H. Abraham, GA Mr. K.P. Bhattacharjee, GA Mr. S. Sengupta, Addl. Sr. GA Mr. K. Baruah, GA

i) Whether approved for reporting in Yes/No Law journals etc.:

ii)      Whether approved for publication                 Yes/No
         in press:
Oral:-
       1.     WP(C) No. 264 of 2018

Case set up by the petitioner is that she has got a landed property measuring about 2 bighas over which she has constructed a residential house. She claims to have patta in respect of the said land from the Garo Hills Autonomous District Council, Tura.

WP(C) No. 264 of 2018 Page 1 2. WP(C) No. 265 of 2018 Case set up by the petitioner is that she has got a landed property measuring about 3 bighas over which she has constructed a residential house. She claims to have patta in respect of the said land from the Garo Hills Autonomous District Council, Tura.

3. WP(C) No. 266 of 2018

Case set up by the petitioner is that she has got a landed property measuring about 7 bighas over which she has constructed a residential house. She claims to have patta in respect of the said land from the Garo Hills Autonomous District Council, Tura.

4. WP(C) No. 267 of 2018

Case set up by the petitioner is that she has got a landed property measuring about 2,000 sq. ft. over which she has constructed a residential house/garage and spare parts shop. She claims to have patta in respect of the said land from the Garo Hills Autonomous District Council, Tura.

5. WP(C) No. 268 of 2018

Case set up by the petitioner is that she has got a landed property measuring about 3 bighas over which she has constructed a residential house. She claims to have patta in respect of the said land from the Garo Hills Autonomous District Council, Tura.

6. WP(C) No. 269 of 2018

Case set up by the petitioner is that he has got a landed property measuring about 2 bighas over which he has constructed a residential house. He claims to have patta in respect of the said land from the Garo Hills Autonomous District Council, Tura.

7. WP(C) No. 270 of 2018

8. WP(C) No. 271 of 2018

Case set up by the petitioner is that he has got a landed property over which he has constructed Semi-RCC house/grocery shop, and wherein fruit bearing and valuable trees are standing thereon.

WP(C) No. 264 of 2018 Page 2 9. WP(C) No. 272 of 2018 Case set up by the petitioner is that he has got a landed property over which he has constructed Semi-RCC house/grocery shop, and wherein fruit bearing and valuable trees are standing thereon.

10. WP(C) No. 273 of 2018

Case set up by the petitioner is that he has got a landed property measuring about 1 bigha over which he has constructed a residential house. He claims to have patta in respect of the said land from the Garo Hills Autonomous District Council, Tura.

11. WP(C) No. 274 of 2018

Case set up by the petitioner is that he has got a landed property over which he has constructed Semi-RCC house/grocery shop, and wherein fruit bearing and valuable trees are standing thereon.

12. WP(C) No. 275 of 2018

1. In all the above petitions, the issues for determination are identical, as such are together taken up for disposal.

2. In these petitions, it is projected that, in connection with the construction of the National Highway NH-44E from Tura to Shillong, land as was required has been acquired in accordance with the provisions of the Land and Acquisition Act. Admittedly, no portion of the land or any other property of the petitioners has been acquired but in the process of construction of the National Highway it is claimed by the petitioners that their respective land and other property existing thereon, as aforesaid being adjacent to the road, got adversely affected, as the fruit bearing trees, houses and boundary walls got damaged. Similar to the position of the petitioners, some other affected persons were enlisted and paid the damages which they had suffered whereas, names of the petitioners were not included in the list, as such were not paid the compensation for the damages which they too had suffered.

WP(C) No. 264 of 2018 Page 3

3. The petitioners had earlier represented before the respondent Deputy Commissioner, East Garo Hills, Williamnagar but without any response, therefore, filed WP(C) No. 274 of 2017, WP(C) No. 264 of 2017, WP(C) No. 267 of 2017, WP(C) No. 273 of 2017, WP(C) No. 268 of 2017, WP(C) No. 275 of 2017, WP(C) No. 265 of 2017, WP(C) No. 272 of 2017, WP(C) No. 271 of 2017, WP(C) No. 266 of 2017, WP(C) No. 269 of 2017. Not only the petitioners but number of other similarly situated persons also filed number of petitions. When all said petitions came up for consideration before the Court, same were permitted to be withdrawn at the request of the respective counsel for the petitioners therein to enable them to file fresh representations before the Deputy Commissioner, Williamnagar. Petitions vide common order dated 30.10.2017 were dismissed as withdrawn with permission to file fresh petitions, if required.

4. The fresh representations appear to have been filed before the Deputy Commissioner, East Garo Hills, Williamnagar for inclusion of their names in the list of beneficiaries in connection with construction of NH-44E after enquiry, assessment of damage for payment of compensation. The representations seem to have been considered by the Deputy Commissioner, East Garo Hills, Williamnagar which culminated in rejection as conveyed to the petitioners individually vide No. EGH/REV.467/2017/130 dated 28.06.2018, aggrieved thereof, instant batch of petitions have been filed.

5. The rejection letter reveals that the petitioners had not filed any claim or objection within the stipulated time of 30 days from the date of publication of preliminary notification. It is also mentioned that inordinate delay in filing claims and objections as the Notification under Section 4 and Declaration under Section 6 of Land and Acquisition Act were not responded by the petitioners. It is further mentioned that the petitioners have not provided any material or proof regarding filing of any objection.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioners was pointedly asked to clarify as to whether any portion of the land or any other property of the petitioners was acquired for the public purpose i.e., construction of the National Highway from Tura to Shillong, the answer was in negative. However, he has made it clear that in fact the land of the petitioners as exists adjacent to the NH-44E was adversely WP(C) No. 264 of 2018 Page 4 affected during the construction of the road, elucidating the same would submit that the crops, fruit bearing trees and the structures as existed on the land of the petitioners were badly damaged. Similar to them, number of other persons, who suffered the similar damage were enlisted in a list styled as 'List of beneficiaries', the petitioners non-inclusion is unjustified as they too have actually suffered the damages.

7. It appears that the Deputy Commissioner, while considering the representations of the petitioners, has not addressed the actual issues while rejecting the representations. The Deputy Commissioner has mentioned about non-filing of objections to Notification under Section 4 and to Declaration issued under Section 6 of the Land and Acquisition Act. In the context of controversy same was not required, the Deputy Commissioner, Williamnagar should have looked into the question as to whether any portion of the land of the petitioners existed adjacent to the road and as to whether any damages were suffered by the petitioners, same has escaped the attention of the Deputy Commissioner or otherwise has hoodwinking the real controversy.

8. The representations have not been addressed in right perspective, that being so, the rejection orders as impugned in these petitions are unsustainable, same are set aside.

9. The petitions with the consensus of the learned counsel for the parties are disposed of with a direction to the Deputy Commissioner, Williamnagr to specifically look into the issues i.e., whether any portion of the land or other property of the petitioners exists or existed adjacent to the National Highway which has been constructed from Tura to Shillong, in case answer shall be in affirmative then, as to whether the petitioners have suffered any damage due to the construction or in the process of construction of the road, if answer shall be in affirmative, then why their names were not included in the list as was styled 'List of beneficiaries' by the respondents wherein, according to the petitioners, the names of other similarly situated persons were included, therefore, on similar line inclusion or non-inclusion of the petitioners names in the list of beneficiaries has to be looked into for payment of compensation, if any due.

WP(C) No. 264 of 2018 Page 5

10. The Deputy Commissioner, Williamnagar, himself or shall constitute a committee of two senior officers to look into the issues as referred to above. The exercise shall be undertaken and completed within a period of eight weeks. The result of consideration be it in affirmative or otherwise whatever permissible, according to the fact situation shall be conveyed to the petitioners, it shall be open to the petitioners thereafter, to have recourse to other available legal remedial measures, if required.

11. Disposed of as above.

12. Copy of this order be placed on each referred connected petitions.

(Mohammad Yaqoob Mir) Chief Justice Meghalaya 14.08.2018 "Sylvana PS"

WP(C) No. 264 of 2018                                                          Page 6

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Meghalaya High Court