High Court of Meghalaya
Shri Lamboklang Mylliemngap Vs. Deputy Commissioner/Collector
Ri-Bhoi District &ors
WP (C) No.373/2016
Decided on: 19.09.2019
Land Acquisition- Article 226 of the Constitution of India – Section 4, Section 6 Sections 9 and 11
of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 – Section 21and 23 of the the Right to Fair Compensation and
Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 – Still further, the
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition,
Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 are self-contained code within the framework of its limited
purpose of acquisition of land. It provides for complete mechanism for acquisition of land including the
process of execution, payment of compensation as well as legal remedies in case of any grievances. The
petitioner claimed value for the construction of two storied building, whereas, the stand of the State is
that it was raised after the issuance of Notification under Section 4 of the Act. In such circumstances, the
issue involves questions of fact regarding the date of construction and, therefore, the reference Court
would be the appropriate forum to adjudicate the issue. In view thereof, the claim of the petitioner
that no compensation for two storied building has been granted could not be acceded to in the writ
jurisdiction. Thus, no ground to interfere in the award announced by the State dated 21.03.2014 or the
additional award dated 19.09.2014 has been made out – The Collector had made a reference under
Section 18 of the Act to the Court of Special Judicial Officer at Nongpoh [as per Annexure-10 (page
42 of the affidavit-in-opposition) of respondent No.1] on 17.12.2015 which was ultimately dismissedin-default on 25.11.2016 for non-appearance of the claimant-writ petitioner.
The provisions of Section 18 of the Act are analogous to Section 64 of 2013 Act. The petitioner approached this Court by way of present writ petition on 17.11.2016. Therefore, in the interest of justice and equity, it is directed that
the petitioner shall be at liberty to seek revival of the reference petition made by the Collector which
was dismissed in default on 25.11.2016. Since, the petitioner had approached this Court prior thereto,
and the writ petition was pending in this Court therefore, in case the petitioner moves an application
seeking restoration of the reference petition within 30 days from the date of receipt of certified copy
of the order, the reference Court shall recall its order dated 25.11.2016 and thereafter proceed in the
matter in accordance with law. Accordingly, the writ petition stands disposed of in the manner indicated
above. Needless to say, the observations made hereinbefore are for the purposes of decision of the writ
petition and shall not be taken to be an expression of opinion on the merits of the controversy
