MARCELLIA A. SANGMA Vs. STATE OF MEGHALAYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this writ petition, the petitioners have challenged the Notification No. RDA 103/2015/365 dtd. 27/6/2019, the various reports of hearing, and the Declaration vide No. RDA 103/2015/744 dtd. 8/6/2020 made under Sec. 11 (1), Sec. 15 and Sec. 19 (1) of The Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as the RFCTLARR Act, 2013) in connection with the acquisition of land measuring about 82B-3K-11L/110672.52 Sqm in Chibragre, Ganolgre, Duragre, Chasingre, Meggonggre, Sangsanggre, Darengre, Dopgre, Jenggitchakgre, Bolchugre, Darak A-kong, Chekwatgre, Ronggatagre, Gimbil A-Dinggre, Rongbibanggre, Daluagre, Romba Chisakgre, Rongbretgre, Wakkolnanggre, Danabollonggre, Bolmapara, Amongpara, Kherapara Nokat, Kherapara Songma, Songmagre, Mandagre, Rengsipara, Rang-dapara, Doldenggagre, Karonggre, Tibapara, and Magupara villages, West Garo Hills District, for widening of National Highway-51 from Goeragre to Chitoktak and Dobasipara to Dalu. The petitioners have also challenged the impugned minutes of meeting dt. 3/10/2018 adopted by the respondent No.12 and impugned letters dt. 4/2/2020 and 6/2/2020 issued by the respondent No.14 by which the respondent authorities excluded the portion of land known as 'Right of Way' (in short ROW) while taking measurement of land for assessment of amount of land compensation. Prayer has also been made for directing the Collector to conduct a fresh survey by including ROW and thereafter to acquire the land as per the fresh survey and to pay suitable compensation to the petitioners in accordance with the RFCTLARR Act, 2013.

(2.) The present writ petition was originally instituted by 90 (ninety) writ petitioners. However, during pendency of the writ petition, the names of the 44 (forty-four) writ petitioners were struck off from the array of parties by orders dtd. 16/4/2021, 14/3/2024 and 2/9/2024 passed in connected Misc. Applications on the ground that the said writ petitioners have already received the amount of land compensation granted to them. The writ petition, thus, proceeded with remaining 46 (forty-six) writ petitioners for final hearing.

(3.) Mr. H. L. Shangreiso, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the decision of the respondent authority to proceed with the land acquisition proceeding is arbitrary and illegal, inasmuch as, the acquisition proceeding could not have proceeded without conducting any hearing and taking a decision on the objection of the writ petitioners as per the mandate of Sec. 15 of the RFCTLARR Act, 2013. The learned Senior Counsel argues that as per the provisions of Sec. 15 (2) of the RFCTLARR Act, 2013, it is mandatory for the collector to give an opportunity to the objector of being heard and thereafter to make a report to the appropriate Government containing his recommendation on the objection. He contends that it is not for the Collector either to accept or reject the objection and the only duty cast on him is to make recommendation in accordance with law. The learned Senior Counsel further submits that as per Sec. 15 (3) of the RFCTLARR Act, 2013, the appropriate Government shall take a decision on the objection, however, declaration under Sec. 19 (1) of the RFCTLARR Act, 2013 in the present matter was made without conducting any hearing and without taking any decision on the objection dtd. 15/9/2019 filed by the petitioners. He submits that the declaration under Sec. 19 (1) could not have been issued without following the provision of Sec. 15 and hence, the declaration dtd. 8/6/2020 made by the respondent No.3 is null and void. That apart, he submits that though the name of the petitioners were included in the notification dtd. 27/6/2019 issued under Sec. 11 (1) of the RFCTLARR Act, 2013, no notice was served under Sec. 12 to the petitioners, which vitiates the land acquisition proceeding. The learned Senior Counsel further submits that the Collector has no authority to take a decision as to whether the portion of land known as ROW be included or excluded while computing the amount of land compensation and the decision to that effect taken by him by adopting the impugned minutes of meeting dtd. 3/10/2018 and on consideration of the impugned letters dtd. 4/2/2020 and 6/2/2020 is highly erroneous and cannot be sustained in law. He also submits that the order dtd. 7/8/2020 passed in MC No. 125 of 2020 and the order dt. 16/12/2021 passed in MC No. 88 of 2021 by which the prayer of the petitioners for stay of the land acquisition proceeding was rejected and the project was allowed to continue, would no way negate the grounds taken by the petitioners in this writ petition as the orders passed at the interim stage would not sanctify foundational illegality committed by the Collector in the acquisition process. The learned Senior Counsel contends that the decision of the respondents authorities to proceed with the acquisition proceeding by ignoring the objection raised by the petitioners cannot be termed as valid in law, and hence, the declaration made under Sec. 19(1) is liable to be set aside and quashed in persona and the matter may be sent back to the Collector for proceeding from the stage of Sec. 15 of the RFCTLARR Act, 2013, afresh with liberty to the petitioners to appear before the Collector for an opportunity of being heard. In support of his argument the learned Senior Counsel has placed reliance on the following decisions of the Apex Court: