DENG BAREH Vs. STATE OF MEGHALAYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Mr. S.P. Mahanta, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. R. Gurung, learned GA appearing for the respondents No. 1, 2, 3 & 7. Also heard Mr. H. Kharmih, learned counsel for the respondents No. 4 -6. This is the third round of litigation the petitioner had approached this Court for a direction to the respondents to complete the land acquisition proceeding for acquiring her land measuring 218 mtrs in length and 7 in mtrs breadth, which is, at present, used by the villagers as an approached road. It is stated in the writ petition, which is not denied by the respondents that the petitioner's land measuring 218 mtrs in length and 7 mtrs in breadth had been used for construction of the village road i.e. Twah -U -Sdiah Village. The petitioner had earlier approached this Court by filing a writ petition being WP(C) No. 252(SH)2003 against the present respondents and the said writ petition had been disposed of vide judgment and order dated 08.09.2008, by directing the State respondents to take up land acquisition proceeding under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 for acquiring the said land of the petitioner which had already been used for construction of the road and erection of poles with electric wires. For convenience, the earlier order of this Court dated 08.09.2008 is quoted hereunder: -

(2.) THE present respondents No. 4 -6 preferred an appeal being Writ Appeal No. 44(SH)2008 before the Division Bench against the said judgment and order of the learned Single Judge dated 08.09.2008, which had been quoted above in extenso. The said writ appeal was dismissed with the observations that the directions for acquiring the land of the petitioner under the said earlier order of the learned Single Judge dated 08.09.2008, are more particularly, to the respondents No. 1, 2 & 3 i.e. State of Meghalaya, represented by the Chief Secretary, Govt. of Meghalaya, the Secretary to the Govt. of Meghalaya, Public Works Department (Roads) and the Deputy Commissioner -cum -Collector, Jaintia Hills District, Jowai vide order dated 10.09.2009. For easy reference, the order of the Division Bench dated 10.09.2008 passed in Writ Appeal No. 44(SH)2008 is quoted hereunder: -

(3.) THE State respondents i.e. 1, 2 & 3 who did not file the affidavit -in -opposition in the earlier writ petition i.e. WP(C) No. 252(SH)2003, filed the affidavit -in -opposition in the present writ petition. It appears that the respondents No. 1, 2, 3 & 7 had taken a new plea in their affidavit -in -opposition for the first time that the PWD did not construct the said road over the said land of the petitioner. It is fairly well settled law that any averments made in the writ petition which had not been denied by filing the affidavit -in -opposition or counter affidavit, shall deem to have been admitted by the respondents. The respondents No. 1, 2 & 3, who did not file the affidavit -in -opposition in the earlier writ petition i.e. WP(C) No. 252(SH)2003 cannot take a new plea which is quite contradictory to the earlier stand taken by them in WP(C) No. 252(SH)2003.