LAMBOKLANG MYLLIEMNGAP Vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has approached this Court by way of present writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, inter alia, impugning letter No.DCRB (LA)12/2008/Pt-I/59/1170 dated 04.10.2016 and letter No.DCRB (LA) 12/2008/Pt-I/74/1372 dated 26.10.2016 issued by respondent No.1 requiring the petitioner to dismantle the two storied structure.

(2.) Briefly, the relevant facts as narrated in the petition may be noticed. The petitioner claims to be the owner and in possession of the landed property along with a two-storied RCC building situated at Ronghona Village, Ri-Bhoi District, Meghalaya measuring about 955.22 sq.mt. The respondent No.3 had issued a notification No.RDA.21/2007/45 dated 21.03.2011under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short the "Act") notifying the proposed acquisition of land measuring approximately 3,07,600 sq.mts. from village Tetelia to Byrnihat in Ri-Bhoi District which was needed for public purpose, namely, for construction of New BG Railway Line from Tetelia to Byrnihat. Subsequently, vide notification No.RDA.21/2007/7 dated 13.03.2012 under Section 6 of the Act a declaration for the said purpose was made. According to the petitioner, the disputed land of the petitioner fell within the area of the land which was intended to be acquired by the said proposed acquisition and his name was also included in the list of claimants for award of compensation after preliminary survey of the land was conducted in pursuance of the issuance of notification under Section 4 of the Act. However, after the issuance of declaration under Section 6 of the Act, no notice was issued under Sections 9 and 11 of the Act in continuation of the acquisition proceedings. The petitioner asserts that though the notification under Sections 4 and 6 of the Act were issued, at no point of time, the respondents or any other authority took over the possession of petitioner's land except for conducting initial survey for measurement of his land. The petitioner pleads that he was not disturbed from making any development of his land including continuance of his construction which was under way at the time of issuance of the notification. The petitioner completed the construction of his building by the month of January 2013.The case of the petitioner is that before an award under Section 11 of the Act could be made, the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (for brevity 2013 Act) came into force w.e.f. 26.09.2013, and, therefore, award was required to be made under 2013 Act.

(3.) To the surprise of the petitioner, in June 2014, the petitioner received a payment notice vide Memo No.DCRB(LA)3/95/P-t/19 dated 11.06.2014 informing him that the competent authority after getting approval of the State Government declared the award on 21.03.2014. As per petitioner, Notice under section 9 of the Act or Section 21 of the 2013 Act was not issued thereby depriving the petitioner of his legitimate right to state the nature of his interest in the land and the entitlement of amount of compensation. The petitioner feeling aggrieved submitted a representation dated 18.08.2014 to respondent No.1 bringing to his notice the non-consideration of the building standing on his land for the purposes of calculation of amount of compensation by the concerned authority and requested it to include the value of the building standing on his land for assessing the compensation amount. No action was taken by the State on the said representation.