Research › Search › Judgment

Meghalaya High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 71 (MEG)

Mary D. Marak v. State of Meghalaya

2019-03-14

H.S.THANGKHIEW, MOHAMMAD YAQOOB MIR

body2019
JUDGMENT : MOHAMMAD YAQOOB MIR, J. 1. Admitted position as emerged from the respective submissions of learned counsel for the parties and also from the record is that land, structure and trees were required to be acquired in connection with expansion of national highway. Notice under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as "LA Act") was issued thereafter under Section 5 of the LA Act followed by declaration Under Section 6 of the LA Act was issued. 2. Admittedly petitioners name did not appear in the notice under Sections 4 and 5 or even declaration under Section 6 of the LA Act. 3. Notice under Section 9 of the LA Act was issued separately to all the four petitioners on 09.07.2013 in response whereof, all the four petitioners on the same day submitted a representation to the Deputy Commissioner (Revenue), East Garo Hills, Williamnagar. Subsequently, preliminary award under Section 11 and final award under Section 12 of the LA Act was published wherein, name of the petitioners did not figure. 4. Petitioners filed writ petition stating therein that land more or less 60 meters with six Assam type katcha houses/shops and 1703 trees were arbitrarily taken over by the respondents in the year 2013 for the purpose of up-gradation of 2 lane roads stretching from Nongstoin-Rongjeng to Tura without paying any compensation. 5. Learned Single Judge while considering the writ petition has passed the order on 24.05.2017 observing therein, that "the issue involved in the writ petition about land compensation the petitioners grievances are that they have not received adequate compensation". Based on which learned Single Judge has opined that "the case is required to be tried and decided by Special Judicial Officer under the LA Act hence, there is no merit in the case, petition is dismissed with liberty to the petitioners to approach the appropriate forum". Aggrieved whereof, instant writ appeal has been filed. 6. According to the learned counsel for the appellants, the case of the appellants has not been considered in the background of pleadings and law. 7. According to learned Addl.Sr.GA, the petitioners had the right to move an application under Section 18 of the LA Act before the Collector for making reference which the petitioners have failed to do. Therefore, writ petition has rightly been dismissed. 8. 7. According to learned Addl.Sr.GA, the petitioners had the right to move an application under Section 18 of the LA Act before the Collector for making reference which the petitioners have failed to do. Therefore, writ petition has rightly been dismissed. 8. While considering the rival submissions and record, what emerges is that notices under Section 9 of the LA Act have been served upon the petitioners who have filed response but same appear not to have been considered. Learned Addl.Sr.GA was fair enough to state that he is not clear as to whether the claim of the petitioners was rejected or accepted. It is also not clear as to whether any compensation amount was awarded for the properties as claimed by the petitioners. 9. When the petitioners have not received any compensation, question of non-payment of adequate compensation does not arise. In our considered view, the case has not been appreciated in its right direction. On the basis of pleadings, it is not clear whether compensation vis-a-vis properties as claimed by the petitioners has been awarded. The order as passed has been proceeded on incorrect facts and decided on incorrect observations which renders the order as unsustainable and is hereby set aside. The matter is remitted back to the learned Single Judge for deciding the matter afresh. 9.1 Registry to take steps for listing petition WP (C) No.102 of 2017 before the Bench having roster in the week following next in the regular Cause List. 10. Appeal succeeds shall stand disposed of as above.