KRISHNA BARUAH Vs. STATE OF MEGHALAYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner in this writ petition is questioning the legality of the notifications dated 5. 1. 2001 and dated 16. 1. 2001 issued by the Revenue Department, Government of Meghalaya under the provisions of Sections 4 (1) and (2) and 17 (1) and (4) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 ("the Act" for short) for acquiring about 7. 879 acre situate at Maxwelton Estate,kench's Trace, Shillong for construction of Office Complexes on the ground that there is no urgency.

(2.) THOUGH the facts in the writ petition are numerous, the point in controversy actually lies within a narrow compass. Shorn of unnecessary details, the case of the petitioner is that the aforesaid plot of land bounded on the North by Stream, on the South by PWD Road, on the East by PWD Road and on the East by the land of (late) B. K. Dey, Smt. Rajashree Bhattacharjee and on the West by the land of (late) R. K. Bisharad, which she claimed to inherit from her late husband, namely, Chittaranjan Baruah, is recorded in her name as the owner thereof. According to the petitioner, by the impugned notifications, she has been denied of her valuable right to make objection under Section 5-A of the Act against the proposed acquisition. She pleaded that there is absolutely no urgency to invoke the provisions of Section 17 (4) of the Act, which is evident from the expression used by the State-respondents, namely, "likely to be needed" which merely refers to the future need and clearly implies that there is no emergency to acquire the same calling for dispensing with the said valuable right to make objection made available under Section 5-A of the Act. It is also pleaded by the petitioner that there are plots of land acquired by the Government, which remained unutilized and were ultimately handed over to tribals for their personal use, even though such acquisitions were made ostensibly for public purpose. Such lands so acquired and for public purpose and made over to tribals are the lands of Murlidhar Jalan, situate opposite the office of the Deputy Commissioner, Shillong, the plot of one J. P. Goenka at Garikhana, G. S. Road, Shillong, which remained unutilized till date. So are the plots of Santikumar Sundarkumar Bajoria and one Aulad Hussain situate at Police Bazar, G. S. Road, Shillong and Police Bazar, Centre Point, Shillong respectively. It is also the case of the petitioner that there are other vacant lands belonging to the Government in Shillong and also near her land, but are never utilized and that right from the very beginning, the respondent-authorities as well as the District Council have been putting hindrance and obstacles on her right to use and enjoyment of the aforesaid plot, which she inherited from her late husband. She also claims that the area of her land proposed to be acquired is 7. 897 acres, which is reality measures 9. 213 acres. The proposed acquisition is, contends the petitioner, a device invented by the respondent-authorities to deprive her of her inherited property and is, therefore, malafide and cannot be sustained in law. Having no alternative, she has been compelled to file this writ petition to protect her property, which is a right guaranteed under Article 300-A of the Constitution.

(3.) THE writ petition is resisted by the respondent-authorities by filing their affidavit-in-opposition. The respondents admit that the estate in question is recorded in the name of the late Chittaranjan Barooah, but they contended that the same does not confer any title to the plot upon the deceased Chittaranjan Barooah. Similarly, it is further contended, the land came to be mutated in the name of the petitioner only in compliance with the direction of this Court in Civil Rule No. 20 (SH) of 1992, but no title accrued to the petitioner thereby. It is pointed out by the respondents that the Maxwelton Estate is under the occupation of Shri J. N. Bawri by constructing a residential house thereon. It is asserted by the respondents that the impugned acquisition proceeding was initiated as the land is urgently required for construction of the Meghalaya Public Service Commission Complex including the Examination Hall, the office complexes of the Meghalaya Home Guard and Civil Divisions, the office complexes of the Commissioner of Taxes and the Commissioner of Excise, which have been asked by the Ministry of Defence in the DO letter dated 22. 11. 2000 to vacate the defence land occupied by them. According to the respondents, the urgency has arisen to meet the twin needs of immediate delivery of possession of the defence land to the Military authorities and to shift the said Government Offices located therein to the land proposed to be acquired. The urgency clause under Section 17 (4) of the Act was, therefore, invoked to avoid any delay in construction of such office complexes. It is also pleaded by the respondents that the petitioner, on her own admission, never occupied the plot in question, which, on the contrary, is under the occupation of some tenants and Shri J. N. Bawri, her alleged Power of Attorney holder. The respondents flatly deny that the proposed acquisition is made with ulterior motive and to deprive her of her residential house. It is, thus, submitted that the writ petition is devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed with cost. The respondents also filed an additional affidavit dated 24. 6. 2005 wherein it is stated that due to the stay order passed by this Court, the acquisition proceeding could not continue thereby adversely affecting public interest. It is also pointed out therein that in the meantime, the defence authorities had issued eviction notice requiring the Home Guard to vacate the defence land, which is under challenge in this Court. It is pleaded that there is thus urgency in the proposed acquisition.