WP(C)/100/2026 of BERNARD G MARAK AND ORS. Vs THE STATE OF MEGHALAYA AND ORS. on 20 April 2026

1. Shri Bernard G. Marak

2. Shri Laibision Marak

3. Smt. Laidina Sangma

4. Smt. Nokme G. Momin

5. Smt. Rinna Sangma

6. Shri Standa Sangma

7. Smt. Tejeni Sangma

8. Shri Willonath Momin

9. Shri Winston Momin

10. Shri Wels Momin

11. Smt. Sentilla Sangma

12. Smt. Dabilla Sangma

…..Petitioner(s) Versus

1. State of Meghalaya through its Chief Secretary, Government of Meghalaya

2. The Deputy Commissioner, Competent Authority of Land Acquisition cum I/C Revenue, East Garo Hills, Williamnagar.

3. The General Manager, National Highways and Infrastructure Development Corporation Limited (NHIDCL), Meghalaya

4. Union of India represented by The Secretary of Ministry of Road Transport and Highways.

…. Respondent(s)

__________________________________________________________

Coram:

Hon’ble Mr. Justice H. S. Thangkhiew, Judge Appearance: For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. P. Ghosh, Adv.

For the Respondent(s) : Mrs. T. Yangi B, AAG with

Ms. R. Colney, GA (For R 1&2)

Dr. N. Mozika, DSTI with

Ms. M. Myrchiang, Adv. (For R 4)

i) Whether approved for reporting in

Yes/No

Law journals etc:

ii) Whether approved for publication

Yes/No

in press: JUDGMENT AND ORDER (ORAL)

1. The petitioners’ prayer in the instant writ petition is for directions to issue to the respondents, the competent authority for land acquisition for consideration and for disposing of an application under Section 3H of the National Highways Act, 1956, within a time bound period, and also to direct to the respondent No. 2, to refer the dispute to the Principal Civil Court under Section 3(H) 3 of the National Highways Act, 1956.

2. An affidavit has been filed by the State respondents, wherein it has been stated that all the applications of the writ petitioners have been disposed on 13.02.2026. In this context, Mrs. T. Yangi B, learned AAG

has referred to the said order passed by the competent authority for land acquisition, wherein it has been clarified that there is no acquisition presently being undertaken either under NH-62 nor in NH-217, in respect of the land in question. She submits that there being no cause of action, the writ petition is therefore incompetent.

3. Mr. P. Ghosh, learned counsel for the petitioners however, has submitted that the land of the petitioners have been acquired as far back as in 2009, and as such the application under Section 3(H)(4), was made for payment of due compensation.

4. However, on the query of this Court, the learned counsel has not been able to substantiate his claim, inasmuch as, apart from the statement that the alleged acquisition is said to have happened in 2009, no other materials such as the notification, or other supporting documents have been filed.

5. In this view of the matter, this writ petition is closed and disposed of with liberty to the petitioners to take recourse to other alternate remedy, as may be admissible in law. JUDGE

Meghalaya 20.04.2026 “V. Lyndem-PS”