STATE OF MEGHALAYA Vs. WINKLE STAR KHARUMLONG

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE judgment and order dated 24-11-2005 passed by the learned single Judge of this Court in WP (C)No. 391 (SH) 2002 is the subject-matter under challenge in this writ appeal.

(2.) SHORN of all the details, the precise fact which would suffice for deciding the present appeal is that, an area known as lum Sohpetbneng of Ri-Bhoi District of meghalaya, was proposed to be acquired by the Forest Department of the Government of Meghalaya for the public purpose for establishing the State Botanical Garden which is admittedly owned by eight land owners. Out of the said eight land owners, two owners had expired namely (L) S. M. Syiemlieh and (L) S. M. Marwein who had been represented by the legal heirs namely Smt Clotilda nongsiej of Jaiaw, Shillong and Smti Seris majaw of Jaiaw Laitdom, Shillong respectively. After the land was proposed to be acquired by the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 (appellant Nos. 1 and 2 herein), the respondent no. 5 (appellant No. 5 herein) was entrusted with the process of acquisition and accordingly the respondent No. 5, after assessing the land fixed the rate at Rs. 25 per sqm. and asked the petitioners to give their consent to the above rate after verbal discussions were held with the respondent No. 5 on several occasions. Against the rate as fixed by the respondent No. 5, by letter dated 26-7-2000, the petitioners expressed their willingness to accept the rate so fixed. However, despite the letter of acceptance of the rate fixed after due assessment by the respondent No. 5, without prior consultation with the petitioner and without assigning any reason, the respondent No. 5 on the very next day after the letter of acceptance was submitted i. e. on 27-7-2000 issued another letter informing that the rate has been proposed to be fixed at Rs. 2 for Plots at Block (i) and Rs. 2. 50 for Block (ii ). On receipt of the aforesaid letter, the petitioners on 7-8-2000 filed an objection against the said rate in view of the fact that the land is a planned land and during the past 15 years, heavy expenditures having been incurred by the petitioners in the management, supervision and improvement of the land proposed to be acquired. Thereafter, in the first meeting of inter departmental negotiating committee held on 21-9-2000 the rate of the land was considered at Rs. 25 per sq. m. and was assessed by the respondent No. 5 at the initial stage. When the matter was rested at thus, the petitioners found that the map of the said plots of land as prepared by the director of Land Records regarding pieces of land to be acquired from the petitioners, the figures appear to be erroneous and on detecting the same, the petitioners filed another letter of objection dated 19-10-2000 with a request that the plots of land be resurveyed. However, that has evoked no response from the respondents. Thereafter, the respondents held another meeting of Inter departmenal Negotiation Committee on 26-9-2000 with the land owners/writ petitioners. In the said meeting all the land owners were present but the respondent Nos. 2 and 5 who are the main parties in the acquisition process were absent. In the said meeting, the land owners were made to sign in an agreement in a coercive manner and the agreement was made hurriedly in the absence of the Land Acquisition Officer. By the said agreement, the petitioners were made to accept the compensation amount at a lump sum rate of Rs. 18. 50 sq. m. and in the said agreement even the schedule of property has not been mentioned. Subsequently on 10-10-2000, the respondents prepared a draft agreement and the petitioners were made to sign in the said agreement despite their refusal to consent to the rate of Rs. 18,50 sq. m. The copy of the agreement also has not been served upon the petitioners. The petitioners thereafter again filed an objection on 8-3-2002 before the respondent No. 5 expressing among other things that the rate decided at Rs. 18. 50 per sq. m. is not adequate and sufficient. Against the aforementioned objection, the respondent no. 5 had given a reply vide communication dated 1 -5-2002 to the effect that since the petitioners had signed the agreement dated 10-10-2000 and also agreed to a lump sum rate of Rs. 18. 50 per sq. m. as cost of land, trees etc. as well as they have received the final payment without protest as such no petition can be entertained any more. Hence, being aggrieved, filed the writ petition before this Court being WP (C) No. 391 (SH)2002 praying therein for a direction to the respondents to pay the compensation at the rate assessed by the respondent No. 5 i. e. at the rate of Rs. 25/- only per sq. m. along with interest and solatium as well as for a direction to the respondents to start fresh negotiation on the enhancement of the rate of compensation or to refer the matter to a civil Court of competent jurisdiction.

(3.) IN the said writ petition, an affidavit-in-opposition was filed by the State-respondents contending therein that the award was made on the basis of the agreement entered into between the parties and there was no objection whatsoever from the petitioners while receiving the compensation awarded, inasmuch as, contents of the agreement makes it abundantly clear that the landowners signed the agreement after being made to understand the contents contained therein. Thus, the "implied" unacceptability is not legally tenable as the petitioners are the parties to the agreement. More so, in the process for acquisition of the land in accordance with the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to Act), a notice under section 4 of the Act was issued on 13-12-2000 which was published in the Meghalaya gazette on 4-1-2001, followed by a declaration under Section 6 of the Act issued on 23-2-2001.