Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 1060 (GAU)

Sangthuami v. State of Mizoram

2022-09-20

MICHAEL ZOTHANKHUMA

body2022
JUDGMENT : Heard Mr. Johny L. Tochhawng, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Ms. Mary L. Khiangte, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 to 6 while Mr. J.C. Lalnunsanga, learned counsel appears for the respondent Nos. 7 and 8. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that due to the excavation of road in the Chanmari West-Vaivakawn-Hunthar Peng junction, for laying pipelines under the Aizawl Water Supply Project, the lands and buildings of the petitioners developed cracks and started to tilt. The petitioners’ counsel submits that the excavation made by the SIPMIU, through the respondent Nos. 7 and 8, plus the fact that the excavated area was not covered for a long time, resulted in damage being caused to the petitioners’ lands and buildings. In this respect, the petitioners’ counsel has relied upon (1) the technical report on joint verification of the petitioner’s lands made by the Sub-Divisional Officer, PWD Project Sub-Division-II, PWD Complex, Treasury Square (Annexure-11), (2) the Geological Report of Joint verification of land made on 23.07.2019 by Technical Officer, Geology &Mineral Resources, Mizoram, Aizawl (Annexure-12) and (3) the letter dated 05.09.2019 issued by the Deputy Commissioner & Chairman, District Disaster Management Authority, Aizawl (Annexure-13). 3. Ms. Mary L. Khiangte, learned Government Advocate for the respondent Nos. 1 to 6, on the other hand, submits that the crack in the lands and buildings of the petitioners was not due to the excavation work done by the SIPMIU, through respondent Nos. 7 and 8, but due to the fact that there was excess underground water in the sinking area, which caused subsidence of the soil, resulting in the development of cracks in the petitioners’ lands and buildings. She submits that the same being in the nature of a natural disaster, the respondents are not liable to pay any damages to the petitioners. 4. The stand of the respondent Nos. 7 and 8 is similar to the stand of the respondent Nos. 1 to 6. 5. On considering the pleadings and the submissions made by the counsel for the parties, it is clear that the issue herein is basically with regard to a claim for payment of damages, wherein disputed questions of facts are involved. 6. A writ Court is not equipped to deal with disputed questions of facts where evidence is required to be recorded. On considering the pleadings and the submissions made by the counsel for the parties, it is clear that the issue herein is basically with regard to a claim for payment of damages, wherein disputed questions of facts are involved. 6. A writ Court is not equipped to deal with disputed questions of facts where evidence is required to be recorded. This Court is accordingly of the view that the petitioners should approach a Civil Court with their grievance and may file separate damage suits, if they are so advised. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed, with liberty being given to the petitioners to approach the Civil Court, if so advised. 7. In the event the petitioners approach the Civil Court, the learned Civil Court should dispose of the suit(s) filed by the petitioners, as expeditiously as possible.