DINGMAN SANGAMA Vs. STATE OF MEGHALAYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this writ application under Art. 226 of the Constitution the petitioners have prayed for issuance of appropriate writ or direction to refer the question of fair valuation and quantum of compensation or damages to the Civil Court for determination under the law and also for payment of compensation.

(2.) The case of the petitioners is that the Government took over about 5803 Bighas of Akhing land. In the year 1972-73 Williamnagar Township was established as Sub-Divisional H.Q. and the Deputy Commissioner on 12-3-77 decided to acquire the land. A notification under S. 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was issued by the Collector to this effect on 18-10-83. Thereafter on 19-1-1984 declaration under S. 6 of the Act was published and claims were invited u/S. 9 of the Act. Thereafter the Deputy Commissioner on 21-3-84 made an award fixing Rs. 100.00 per bigha for Akhing land and Rs. 200.00 for homestead land. After the award some of the villagers submitted an application to the Chief Minister, Government of Meghalaya, Shillong praying for enhancement of the amount of compensation awarded by the Collector (Deputy Commissioner). A copy of this application was forwarded amongst others, to the Revenue Minister and the Deputy Commissioner, East Garo Hills District, Williamnagar for favour of information and necessary action. As no action was taken, by Annexure-C representation dated l-5-84 some of the petitioners and others filed application requesting the Deputy Commissioner for enhancement of the compensation awarded by him or to refer the matter to the concerned authorities for proper valuation. Thereafter several representations were filed before various authorities including the Chief Minister, but nothing was done. Hence the petitioners have filed this petition praying for issuance of a direction for referring the matter to the Court for proper adjudication. Respondent, namely, the State of Meghalaya and the Deputy Commissioner, East Garo Hills filed affidavit denying receipt of any application as contemplated under S. 18 of the Land Acquisition Act and, therefore, according to them this petition deserves rejection. Respondents 1 and 2 further stated that Annexures-B, C and other representations were not received by the Government. At least those are not on Government record.

(3.) I have heard Mr. P. K. Goswami, learned counsel for the petitioners and also Mr. A. Sarma, learned Government Advocate, Meghalaya.