Research › Search › Judgment

Meghalaya High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 213 (MEG)

Sellina A. Sangma v. State of Meghalaya

2014-09-04

T.NANDAKUMAR SINGH

body2014
Judgment T. Nandakumar Singh, J. 1. By this writ petition, the petitioner is praying for a direction to the respondents to vacate the land belongs to the petitioner and also to compensate for the unauthorized occupation or alternately acquire the land as per the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. 2. Heard Ms. SG Momin, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. ND Chullai, learned Sr. GA assisted by Ms. NG Shylla, learned GA appearing for the respondents. 3. The fact leading to the filing of the present writ petition is briefly noted. 4. The petitioner is the owner of a plot of land situated at village Gandibor, Gasupara, South Garo Hills District, Meghalaya, measuring 3 Bigha 1 Katha and 15 Lecha and the said land was covered by periodic Patta No. 79, Mouza No. IX-2, Dag No. 187, 240, 127 & 25, and the said Patta was granted by the Garo Hills Autonomous District Council (for short 'GHADC') in the year 1973 in the joint name of the petitioner and her husband (Late) Monindro Marak. It is further stated that the provisions of Assam Land Regulation under which the Patta is issued was adopted by the GHADC. It is stated that the GHADC is the competent authority to grant the said Patta in favour of the petitioner for the said land. After the death of the petitioner's husband (Late) Monindro Marak, the petitioner became the sole owner of the said land and the said land was also mutated in the name of the petitioner vide order dated 15.03.2007 passed in Mutation GDC/LR 55 (M) of 2006-2007. The said land of the petitioner is a fertile land and used for agricultural and horticultural purpose. Cultivating the said land is the only source of livelihood of the petitioner, and the petitioner had enjoyed the uninterrupted peaceful possession of the said land and also paid revenue regularly. Photo copies of the revenue receipts are annexed as Annexure-III series to the writ petition. 5. In the last week of the month of October, 2012, the petitioner was informed that some of the officers belonging to Weaving and Sericulture Department, Govt. of Meghalaya, had entered into the said land of the petitioner for the purpose of construction of District Weaving Office, South Garo Hills District and started to lay foundation for the construction of a building. of Meghalaya, had entered into the said land of the petitioner for the purpose of construction of District Weaving Office, South Garo Hills District and started to lay foundation for the construction of a building. On enquiry, the petitioner came to learn that the said department of the Govt. of Meghalaya i.e. Weaving and Sericulture is going with a construction of an office and the said land is allotted to department of Weaving and Sericulture by the Deputy Commissioner, South Garo Hills District. On further enquiry, the petitioner had been informed that the office of the Deputy Commissioner, South Garo Hills District had allotted the said land. The petitioner also served legal notice dated 28.01.2013 under Section 80 of the CPC to the Deputy Commissioner, South Garo Hills District for institution of a suit for claiming the damages or compensation at the tune of Rs. 30 lakhs being the cost of the said land. There was no reply to the said notice under Section 80 of the CPC by the Deputy Commissioner, South Garo Hills District. Ms. SG Momin, learned counsel for the petitioner strenuously contended that the Deputy Commissioner, South Garo Hills District is duty bound to give reply to the said notice under Section 80 of the CPC. Ms. SG Momin, further asserted that the Apex Court in a catena of cases held that the concerned authority to whom the notice under Section 80 of the CPC has been served is to give reply to the said notice in order to avoid unnecessary litigation and also for settlement of the matter. It is the further case of the petitioner that the said land of the petitioner cannot be deprived by the State respondents without payment of compensation inasmuch as, no person shall be deprived of his land in violation of Article 300A of the Constitution of India. 6. The respondents had filed joint affidavit-in-opposition stating that the said land claimed by the petitioner as its owner, had been allotted free of cost to the said department i.e. Weaving & Sericulture for construction of Weaving Demonstration-cum-Production Centre at Gasupara, West Garo Hills. It is also stated in the affidavit-in-opposition that after handing over of the said land by the concerned Nokma, 3 (three) office buildings were constructed i.e. Weaving Workshop and two quarters occupied by Weaving Demonstrator and Peon since 1981. It is also stated in the affidavit-in-opposition that after handing over of the said land by the concerned Nokma, 3 (three) office buildings were constructed i.e. Weaving Workshop and two quarters occupied by Weaving Demonstrator and Peon since 1981. In addition to the existing office buildings of the Handloom Demonstration-cum-Production Centre at Gasupara, a Common Facility Centre to cater the upgradation of skills of the weavers had been constructed by the Meghalaya Government Construction Corporation. The said construction work had already started in the month of October, 2012 and as of now 25% of the work is completed. 7. On conjoint reading of the writ petition and additional affidavit as well as the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the State respondents and also hearing the submissions of the learned counsel appearing for the parties, it appears that there is serious disputed question of fact as to whether the said land particular of which had been mentioned above belongs to the writ petitioner or to the Weaving & Sericulture Department, Govt. of Meghalaya. Under Article 300A of the Constitution of India any land belongs to the individual is not to be deprived save by authority of law. If the said land particular of which had been described above is really belonged to the petitioner, the concerned authority shall have to pay compensation for the said land to the petitioner. Now the question is the said land belongs to whom. 8. In the above factual backdrop, this writ petition is disposed of by directing the Deputy Commissioner, South Garo Hills District to make an enquiry on the following points/issues:- (i) Whether or not the said land belongs to the petitioner? (ii) Whether or not the said land was allotted by the concerned Nokma as claimed by the State respondents to the State respondents? (iii) If the said land after enquiry, finds that the said land belongs to the petitioner, the State Govt. (ii) Whether or not the said land was allotted by the concerned Nokma as claimed by the State respondents to the State respondents? (iii) If the said land after enquiry, finds that the said land belongs to the petitioner, the State Govt. shall recourse to the provisions under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 to acquire the said land by paying adequate compensation to the petitioner and; (iv) The whole exercise for completing the enquiry should be completed within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment and order by the Deputy Commissioner, South Garo Hills District and if the said land belongs to the petitioner, the land acquisition proceeding should be completed within a period of three months from the date of completing the said enquiry. 9. With the above observations and directions, this writ petition is disposed of.