WP(C)/102/2017 of Smt. Mary D. Marak Vs State Of Meghalaya on 8 August 2024

1. Smt. Mary D. Marak

Vs. 1.The State of Meghalaya represented by the Chief Secretary, Government of Meghalaya, Shillong, Meghalaya.

aged about 40 years, residentof Songsak Wagopgre,Songsak A’king land Williamnagar, East Garo Hills,Meghalaya.

2. The Under Secretary to the Government of Meghalaya, Revenueand Disaster Management DepartmentGovernment of Meghalaya, Shillong.

2. Shri. Nicolash Ch. Marak aged about 45 years, residentof Songsak Wagopgre,Songsak A’king land Williamnagar, East Garo Hills,Meghalaya.

3. The Deputy Secretary to the Government of Meghalaya, Revenueand Disaster Management Department,Government of Meghalaya, Shillong.

3. Shri. Hudshon Sangma aged about 50 years, residentof Songsak Wagopgre,Songsak A’king land Williamnagar, East Garo Hills,Meghalaya.

4. The Collector/Deputy Commissioner,East Garo Hill District, Williamnagar.

5. Extra Assistant Commissioner (EAC)East Garo Hills Williamnagar.

4. Shri. Pangsrang Sangma aged about 35 years, residentof Songsak Wagopgre,Songsak A’king land Williamnagar, East Garo Hills,Meghalaya.

…..WRIT PETITIONERS.

6. Chief Engineer National Highway(NH)Public Work Department (Roads) Government of Meghalaya, Shillong.

….RESPONDENTS.

7. The Garo Hills Autonomous DistrictCouncil, Tura represented by itsSecretary, Tura.

…..PRO-FORMA RESPONDENT.

Coram:

Hon’ble Mr. Justice B. Bhattacharjee, Judge Appearance:

For the Petitioner/Appellant(s) : Mr. H. L. Shangreiso, Sr. Adv.with Ms. P. Biswakarma, Adv.

For the Respondent(s)

: Mr. K. Khan, AAG with

Mr. S. Sengupta, Addl. Sr. GA.

Mr. K. P. Bhattacharjee, GA.

ORAL:-

Heard Mr. H. L. Shangreiso, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Ms. P.Biswakarma, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner and also Mr. K. Khan,learned AAG assisted by Mr. S. Sengupta, learned Addl. Sr. GA appearing forthe State-respondents.

The petitioners claim to be owners of certain plots of land which wereacquired by the respondents by the land acquisition proceeding initiated videnotification No.RDA.21/2012/52 dated 14-03-2013 issued under Section 4 andnotification No. RDA.21/2012/83 dated 23-05-2013 issued under Section 6 ofthe Land Acquisition Act, 1894 for construction of two-lane Shillong-NongstoinSection of NH-44 and Nongstoin-Rongjeng-Tura under Phase “A” of SARDP-NE. The grievance raised by the petitioner are that they have not been paid anycompensation for their plots of lands acquired for the purpose of construction ofthe road.

The stand of the petitioners is that they hold certain stretch of landsrunning along with the NH-44 but their names were not included in the list ofbeneficiaries for payment of compensation. The learned Counsel for thepetitioners contended that during the course of the acquisition proceeding,notices under Section 9 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 were issued to thepetitioners requiring them to appear before the respondent No.4 for stating thenature of their respective interest in the lands acquired and the amount and theparticulars of their claims to compensation for such interest. However, in spiteof issuance of notices under Section 9 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, thepetitioners were not afforded any opportunity to be heard although they werepresent on the date fixed for their presence before the respondent No 4. Thelearned Senior Counsel further contended that a representation dated 13-07-2013 was filed by the petitioners before the respondent No.4 for affording thema chance of hearing and for payment of compensation for their land taken overby the acquisition proceeding but the respondent No.4 did not consider the saidrepresentation. It is further contended that the petitioners had no knowledge ofdate of making of award in the said acquisition proceeding and because of thatthey were not in a position to raise any immediate grievance against non-inclusion of their names in the list of beneficiaries for payment ofcompensation. It is submitted that the respondent No.4 was under lawfulobligation to afford an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners since they wereissued with the notices under Section 9 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 butthe respondent No.4 had proceeded to prepare the award in the matter withoutperforming his lawful duty as stipulated by law. The learned Senior Counsel,thus, prayed that a direction may be issued to the respondents, particularly therespondent No.4 to consider the claims of the petitioners and pass necessaryorder for payment of adequate compensation.

Conclusion

Mr. K. Khan, learned AAG submitted that the petitioners haveapproached this Court without giving any details of ownership of the propertiesclaimed by them and there is no document annexed with the writ petition toprima facie show that the petitioners hold any plots of lands falling within thestretch of land acquired by the Government for the construction of the Shillong-Nongstoin Section of NH-44 and Nongstoin-Rongjeng-Tura Road. The learnedAAG submitted that in absence of any prima facie proof of ownership of land,the writ petition deserves no consideration. The learned AAG further submittedthat the notices under Section 9 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was wronglyissued to the petitioners and the said notices were not based on the list ofbeneficiaries mentioned in the notifications issued under Section 4 and Section6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. He contended that mere issuance ofnotices under Section 9 does not create or confer any right on the petitioners toclaim compensation. He submitted that as per the records of the acquisitionproceedings, none of the petitioners own or possess any plot of land within theacquired portion of the land. It is also the submission of the learned AAG that ifthe petitioners have any claim for payment of compensation, they should availthe remedy by making use of the related provisions of the Land Acquisition Actand not by filing a writ petition. He submits that there is no merit in the writpetition and the same deserves to be dismissed forthwith.

The writ petition reveals that the petitioners have not given anydescription of properties owned by them and there is no document to supporttheir claim of ownership of plot of land situated within the stretch of landacquired by the State for construction of Shillong-Nongstoin Section of NH-44and Nongstoin-Rongjeng-Tura Road. During the course of hearing of the matter,the State-respondents produced the record of the acquisition proceeding. Aperusal of the record disclosed that the final award has been made in the matter containing the details of the individuals who were granted compensation butthere is no mention of the date on which the award was made. At the hearing,the learned AAG was also unable to clarify as to the actual date of award.However, the preparation of the final award in the matter is not disputed by thepetitioners and as per the submission of the learned AAG, made on the basis ofthe record of the acquisition proceeding, many of the beneficiaries have alreadyreceived the compensation awarded to them. Since, there is no mention of dateon which the final award was made, the petitioners cannot be blamed for notraising their grievances before the respondent No.4 at the appropriate point oftime of making of the award or immediately thereafter.

The case of the petitioners in the present matter, in a nutshell, is aboutnon-payment of compensation. While the petitioners claim that their respectiveplots of lands were taken over by the State for the purpose of construction ofShillong-Nongstoin Section of NH-44 and Nongstoin-Rongjeng-Tura Road, theState contends that the petitioners do not own or possess any plot of landsituated within the stretch of the land acquired for the purpose of construction ofthe said road. The dispute between the parties appears to be of such naturefalling under the purview of Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 andSection 76 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in LandAcquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. Both the aforesaidprovisions of law are in pari materia and lay down that when the compensationhas been settled and there arises a dispute as to the apportionment of the same orin part thereof, or as to the person to whom the same or any part payable, theCollector may refer the same dispute to the authority prescribed by law. Thus,the grievance raised by the petitioners needs to be addressed in accordance withthe provisions of the aforesaid law. Moreover, in the facts and situation of thecase, no case has been made out by the petitioners at this stage for passing of any direction for payment of compensation in exercise of writ jurisdiction ofthis Court.

In the present case, it appears that the petitioners have filed a jointrepresentation on 13-07-2013 to the respondent No.4. However, there isnothing on record to indicate that the petitioners have filed any application interms of Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 or Section 76 of theRight to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition,Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 for consideration of their case by theauthorities prescribed under the law. Since, the grievance raised by thepetitioners is in relation to claim of compensation for landed properties claimedby them, it would be open to the petitioners to approach the respondent No.4 byfiling application in terms of the provisions of law laid down in Section 76 ofthe Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition,Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 seeking reference of the dispute tothe Authority as per law.

It is provided that in the event of filing of any such application by thepetitioners, the same shall not be rejected on the ground of delay and latches onthe part of the petitioners and the respondent No.4 shall take a decision on meritin accordance with law. In case, the petitioners file application in accordancewith the view taken hereinabove, the same shall be filed within a period of 30(thirty) days from the date of passing of this order. The respondent No.4, uponfiling of any such application by the petitioners, shall dispose of the same withina period of two months from the date of filing of the application.

With the aforesaid, this writ petition stands disposed of. No Costs.

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)

Meghalaya08.08.2024“Biswarup PS”

Signature Not Verified

Judge