Meghalaya High Court

WP(C)/469/2021 of SUNAINA MARAK AND 2 ORS. Vs STATE OF MEGHALAYA AND 4 ORS. on 1 September 2023

Cites 0, Cited by 0

No. 09 Regular List HIGH COURT OF MEGHALAYA AT SHILLONG WP(C) No. 469 of 2021 Date of Decision: 01.09.2023 Shri. Sunaina Marak & 2 Ors. Vs. State of Meghalaya & 4 Ors. Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice W. Diengdoh, Judge Appearance: For the Petitioner/Appellant(s) : Mr. A.G. Momin, Adv.

Serial No. 09 Regular List

HIGH COURT OF MEGHALAYAAT SHILLONG

WP(C) No. 469 of 2021

Date of Decision: 01.09.2023Shri. Sunaina Marak & 2 Ors. Vs. State of Meghalaya & 4 Ors.

Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice W. Diengdoh, JudgeAppearance: For the Petitioner/Appellant(s) : Mr. A.G. Momin, Adv. For the Respondent(s) : Mr. S. Sen, Sr. GA. with Ms. I. Lyngwa, GA. Mr. A. Momin, GA. i) Whether approved for reporting in Yes/No Law journals etc.: ii) Whether approved for publication in press: Yes/No ORDER (ORAL)

Citations and Judicial Treatment

No citing decisions in the index yet

Cited by

0

Decisions in the index citing it

Cites

0

Decisions referred to

In this index

0

Of the decisions it cites

Overruled / Questioned

0

No negative treatment found

Loading the citing and cited decisions…

1. Heard Mr. A.G. Momin, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. S. Sen, learned Sr. GA for the State respondents.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the grievance of the petitioners raised in this petition is with regard to the process and procedure followed, wherein the land of the petitioners was –acquired for construction of two Laning Shillong Nongstoin section of –––NH 44 and Nongstoin Rongjeng Tura Road State Road under Phase “A” of SARDP – NE. Though, it is admitted that the proceedings as per the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was duly followed, however, in course of time, the new Act, that is, the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 came into place, wherein the procedure followed by the said Act deals with matters of acquisition and compensation and for which the present proceedings are now followed.

3. The grievance of the petitioners is only to the fact that the award is yet to be published, which according to the learned Sr. GA is a procedural matter and at this juncture, the award is likely to be published at any point of time in accordance with due procedure.

4. The parties agreeing not to agitate the issues raised in this petition on merits, has however, consented that this petition may be disposed of with specific directions to the State respondents to complete the procedure, particularly to publish the said award as expeditiously as possible.

5. Accordingly, as submitted, the State respondent is hereby directed to complete the process including publication of the said award possibly within a period of 6(six) months from the date of a certified copy of this order.

6. This will however not prejudice the rights of the petitioners to approach any legal forum, if and when aggrieved by such proceedings.

7. In view of the above noted directions, this petition is accordingly disposed of.

Judge

Meghalaya

01.09.2023 “D. Nary, PS”

You have used today's free searches. Sign in, for free, to keep searching without a limit.

Compass reads the judgments for you and finds the paragraphs for and against your question. Sign in to use it.

My Vault follows judgments for you and records every later decision that cites them. Sign in to keep one.

Sign in to download the court's PDF. The full text stays free to read here.

Sign in, for free, to download the court copy. Reading the full text here stays open to everyone.

Search and read Indian judgments without limits, save them to My Vault and find the relevant paragraphs with Compass.

Open the sign-in page instead