DHAN BAHADUR THAPA Vs. STATE OF SIKKIM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Petitioners No.1 to 5 claim to be owners of landed property contiguous to one another, portions of which the Government required from all of them, for the purposes of construction of the Adampool Highway. Subsequently, the route of the highway was realigned, as a consequence of the realignment, some portions of the aforementioned lands lay unused. It is the claim of the Petitioner No.1 that, suddenly from 29/8/2025, construction of walls on a war footing has commenced on a portion of unused land, which belongs to him, hence the prayers in the Writ Petition seeking inter alia a direction to the Respondents to stay away from the unutilized portions of the properties of the Petitioners. A writ or direction to the Respondents for payment of compensation as per the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereinafter, the "Land Acquisition Act, 2013). To disburse the compensation with 100% solatium as per the said Act and to restrain the Respondents from trespassing or taking forceful possession of the Petitioners land, issue an ad interim or permanent injunction restraining the Respondents or their men, agent and any other person(s) from continuing any construction on the land of the Petitioners.

(2.) Having heard Learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioners, and perused the averments in the Petition and the documents annexed thereto, Notice dtd. 3/8/2021, indicates that the Petitioner No.1 had sold an area of 0.3700 hectares to the Government at a consideration value of 75,67,092/-. As per letter dtd. 29/11/2021, the Petitioner No.1 had requested for return of the unused land (measuring 0.1280 hectares) to him from the area of 0.3700 hectares, acquired for construction of the alternative highway. The document also reveals that 80% of the compensation amount against the acquisition of the land was received by the Petitioner No.1 (Annexure-P3).

(3.) On 19/12/2024, the Respondent No.3 (The Additional Chief Engineer, Roads and Bridges Department) addressed a letter to the Respondent No.5 (The District Collector, Gangtok District), concerning the landed property owned by Petitioner No.3, identified as Plot No.71/P under Ranka Block, which was "initially utilized" during the planning of the double lane road, at Adampool Ranka Sichey. It was explained therein that, due to a subsequent change in the road alignment, the portion of land falling under the said plot remained unutilized and was not incorporated into the final construction plan. That, Petitioner No.3 has expressed his willingness to refund the compensation amount to the department and have the unused land returned to him. That, this transaction as per Respondent No.3 (The Additional Chief Engineer, Roads and Bridges Department) would be subject to the following caveats; (a) refund of the said compensation by the Petitioner No.3 to the department; and (b) thereafter reversion of the land under Plot No.71/P to the said Petitioner No.3 (Annexure P8).