SRIJANA GURUNG Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Contempt Petition has been filed by the Petitioner claiming that the Respondents have wilfully disobeyed the Judgment of the Learned Single Judge of this Court, in WP(C) No.47 of 2022, dtd. 29/5/2023, hence Contempt proceedings be initiated against them.

(2.) In the Writ Petition (supra), the Petitioner with her husband, claimed to be joint owners, of an RCC building, on land bearing plot no.290/2244, measuring 0.0140 hectares (1507 sq. ft.) at Pachey Samsing Block, Pakyong Elakha, Sikkim, vide registered Sale Deed Document, dtd. 13/2/2007 and Parcha Khatiyan no.690, dtd. 3/11/2009. That, the Petitioner received a 'Final Notice' dtd. 8/9/2022, issued by the Respondent No.5 the Sub-Divisional Magistrate (in the Writ Petition supra), stating that her property had been acquired by the Respondent No.6 [National Highways and Infrastructure Development Corporation Limited (NHIDCL)] for construction/upgradation of the existing lane to a two-lane road. She was directed to vacate and hand over possession of the property described above, within ten days of receipt of the Notice. That, there was no Notification issued by the concerned authorities for acquisition of her property. Hence, the Petitioner by filing the Writ Petition sought a direction upon the Respondents to acquire her land and the RCC building at the prevalent market rate, following the due process of law, before taking physical possession.

(3.) During the course of the hearing in WP(C) No.47 of 2022, Learned Additional Advocate General for the State-Respondents No.2 to 5 and the Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Respondent No.6 submitted that, they had no issue if the Petitioner restricted her claims to her property, viz., land described in the Parcha Khatiyan and that they were willing to ensure that they do not carry out any of their activities in the areas specified in the said Parcha Khatiyan. The Petitioner agreed that if the Court would protect her ownership rights, as reflected in the Parcha Khatiyan, she would not protest the project works undertaken by the Respondents for expanding the National Highway. The Learned Single Judge taking into consideration the understanding between the parties and having concluded that the Petitioner and her husband were the owner of land bearing plot no.290/2244 as found recorded in Parcha Khatiyan no.690, deemed it appropriate to dispose of the Writ Petition, without examining the merits of the issues raised by the parties, by allowing the Respondents to continue with the infrastructural project of expansion of the National Highway, duly ensuring that they do not infringe upon the Petitioner's rights of ownership of the plot number, as specified above, without following due process of law.