GWENDOLINE LYNGDOH Vs. STATE OF MEGHALAYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner in this writ petition is praying for issuing a writ of mandamus or a writ of that nature directing the BSF-respondents to acquire 84 acres of her land on payment of compensation.

(2.) THE facts of the case as pleaded by the petitioner, in a nutshell, are that the BSF-authorities by the letter at Annexure-I requested the respondent No. 2 to acquire some 85 acres of the land situate at Mukhla near Jowai, belonging to the petitioner to establish one BSF battalion for increasing surveillance on and containing militant and other trans-border crimes. The respondent No. 2 by his letter dated 13. 3. 2002 (Annexure-II) intimated the respondent-BSF that the market value of the land in question was Rs. 28. 50p per square feet. The respondent No. 2 also by the letter dated 3. 6. 2003 requested the Under Secretary, Govt. of Meghalaya, Revenue Department to constitute a Committee for making suitable recommendation as the land was urgently required by the BSF. This apparently resulted in the constitution of Land Acquisition Advisory Committee with the Minister of Revenue as its Chairman, which, in the meeting held on 27. 6. 2003, proposed to acquire the land of the petitioner alongwith another land at Rajap Rajpara, West Khasi Hills, with which we are not concerned in this case. By the letter dated 3. 1. 2005, the respondent No. 3 informed the respondent No. 2 that the petitioner had agreed to waive additional compensation under Section 23 (ii) (iii) 2 (b) at the rate of 30% and 12% (presumably interest @ 12% per annum from the date of publication of notice under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and solatium @ 30% on the market value) and requested him to intimate the actual cost of the land and the exact implication including Government revenue and processing charge for the same.

(3.) IT is also the case of the petitioner that by his letter dated 13. 1. 2005, the respondent No. 2 informed the respondent No. 3 that the probable cost of the land of the petitioner would come to Rs. 11,60,84,333. 70p (Rupees eleven crores sixty lakhs eighty four thousand three hundred thirty three and paise seventy) only and that the waiver of interest and other charges would have to be in the form of agreement between the requiring Department and the landowner, which should be furnished to him for necessary action at their end. Following this communication, according to the petitioner, the respondent No. 2 convened a meeting in his office chamber on 26. 7. 2005, which was attended by the representatives of the landowner, the requisitioning Department and other members, in which it was agreed that the cost of the land to be acquired would be Rupees Nine crores only while 10% of the sum would be revenue fee vide Annexure-X. However, the respondent No. 3 subsequently by his letter dated 24. 8. 2005 requested the respondent No. 2 to urgently inform him the current market value of the said land through local sources after verifying relevant records maintained in the office of the respondent No. 2. In response to this letter, the respondent No. 2 is alleged to have arbitrarily fixed the rate at Rs. 157. 62 per square metre and asked further advice from the Government of Meghalaya. Thereafter, the Deputy Secretary, Government of Meghalaya. Revenue Department apprised the respondent No. 2 on the advice of the Government of Meghalaya vide his letter dated 17. 11. 2005 and stated therein, inter alia, that the rates already fixed by the previous Collector had been fixed on the basis of materials available with him and on the basis of specified and accepted principles laid down and legally valid for the purpose. Thereafter, the BSF-authorities by the letter dated 23. 11. 2005 requested the respondent No. 2 to intimate the latest rate of the land sought to be acquired "so that the acquisition process could be accelerated and the troops could also be accompanied at a right place suiting to their operational as well as logistice requirements". Interestingly, the respondent No. 3 by his letter dated 23. 12. 2005 informed both the petitioner and the respondent No. 2 that the BSF required additional 40 to 50 acres of the same holding.