Smti. Dahila D. Sangma vs The State of Meghalaya, Represented by the Commissioner and Secretary, Revenue and Disaster Management, Shillong, & Anr.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. PT Sangma as well as learned State counsel for the State respondents, Mrs. S. Bhattacharjee.

The petitioner''s case in a nutshell is that:

The humble petitioner is a bonafide citizen of India by birth, headman/Nokma of Simsanggre Dawa A.king IV-56(5) land and

permanent resident of Simsanggre A.king which is also known as Ampangdamgre, P.O. & P.S. Williamnagar, East Garo Hills

District, Meghalaya and the successive Nokma of Simsanggre A.king land. That during the early part of 1972, when the petitioner''s

predecessor (L) Gosin Marak was the Nokma of Sinsanggre Dawa A.king land, the Government of Meghalaya had expressed its

view to acquire the land falling under the jurisdiction of Simsanggre A.king land extending to the part of area belonging to 7 different

Nokmas/headman. That in response to the Government''s view and its plan to establish Williamnagar township, 7 (seven) different

Nokma''s including the petitioner''s predecessor (L) Gosin Marak have agreed to part with some portion of land and accordingly, the

Government of Meghalaya/State Respondent have finalized its plan to establish the township in Williamnagar and accordingly State

respondent had entered into an agreement on 08.01.1972 with 7 different Nokmas/headmen of different A.king land. However, the

name of the petitioner''s predecessor (L) Gosin Marak the headman of Simsanggre Aking was not included in the list of agreement

along with six other Nokmas, and the compensation for a sum of Rs.80,90,550/- (Rupees Eighty Lakhs Ninety Thousand Five

Hundred Fifty) was paid to Late Gosin Marak without entering into any agreement. That the State Respondent also have carried out

the Survey work but surprisingly (L) Gosin Marak, the then headman i.e., the predecessor of the petitioner was not invited or given

an opportunity to file his objection/Claim under Section 5A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1984 and moreover when the State

Respondent conducted the survey work, (L) Gosin Marak was not present at the spot but land was acquired and compensation was

paid to (L) Gosin Marak by bypassing the required provision of law. That having doubt in the mind of the petitioner about the fairness

and transparency in the payment of compensation and also with regards to acquisition of portion of land of Simsanggre Dawa A.king

land. The present petitioner had filed an RTI application dated 16.09.2008 before the Public Information Officer i.e., the Deputy

Commissioner Office and accordingly the Deputy Commissioner had furnished the information and it was revealed that total area

acquired from Simsanggre A.king land is 1618-0-11 bighas and payment was made at Rs. 5000/- per bighas total amount coming

into Rs. 80,90,550/- . But whereas, the actual total area acquired by the government is 1995-0-0 bighas, which clearly indicates that

government had occupied excess area of 377 bighas. Petitioner after obtaining information from the RTI she has submitted an

application dated 18.10.2010 and 08.05.2012 requesting the State Respondent to take the necessary step to conduct the re-

survey/remeasure of the Simsanggre Dawa A.king land/Ampangdemgre which was acquired by the State respondent and further pray

to pay the compensation to the access land of 377.0 Bighas. However, there is no response from the State Respondent with regards

to her representation. The petitioner was left with no other alternative remedy and on being aggrieved by the actions of the State

Respondent had approached this Hon''ble High Court of Meghalaya by way of filing the writ petition which is being registered as

WP(C) No. 179 (SH) 2014 Smti. Dahila D.Sangma -versus- The State of Meghalaya. However, the petitioner has withdrawn the

said Writ Petition with liberty to file a fresh one, if so desired. That after withdrawing the said writ petition, petitioner had been

pursuing the matter with the Deputy Commissioner-cum-Revenue Department, Govt. of Meghalaya and placed her grievances before

the concerned authorities by submitting a representation dated 17.06.2016, but interestingly, the State Respondent have not replied

or responded to the representation submitted by the petitioner nor have they taken any step to redress and resolve the grievances of

the petitioner till date. Therefore, being aggrieved by the act and action of the respondents, the petitioner is approaching before this

Hon''ble Court for its intervention.

After hearing the submissions advanced by the learned counsels for the parties, it appears that the compensation awarded by the government is

less as compared to the land acquired. According to the petitioner, the land acquired was much more than the land mentioned as acquired and

prayed for a direction of joint inspection by the parties and the Government authorities and others.

In my view, this petition can be disposed of at this motion stage with the following direction. Respondents and the petitioner to conduct a joint

inspection within 15(fifteen) days from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order and to come to a proper conclusion and make the

payment accordingly.

With this observation and direction, this instant petition is allowed and stands disposed of.