Back
2022 Supreme(Gau) 1005
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH, ITANAGAR BENCH
Kalyan Rai Surana, Robin Phukan, JJ.
Ngasi Mena, S/o Lt. Tibu Mena – Petitioner
Versus
The State of AP, Represented by Chief Secretary and ors. – Respondents
PIL 14 of 2021
Decided On : 21-07-2022
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner:Mr. S. Mow, Advocate
For the Respondent:Mr. K. Ete, Addl. Advocate General, Mr. S. Tapin, Addl. Sr. Govt. Advocate, Mr. D. Kamduk, Standing Counsel, Mr. M. Kato, ASGI
Headnote:
Constitution of India, 1950 – Article 226 – Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 – Gauhati High Court (Public Interest Litigation) Rules, 2011 – Rule 10 – Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 – Payment of compensation – Quashing of the impugned notification – Petitioner has also prayed for issuance of a mandamus upon respondent no.2 “to issue a fresh notification under LARRA for any fresh Acquisition in Court – Held, Court is constrained to hold that statement made in para-1 of this PIL, as reiterated and supported by statement made in para-4 of affidavit , appended in support of statements made in this PIL is nothing but a false statement – Therefore, preliminary objection raised by learned Senior Govt. Advocate is sustained. Resultantly, this PIL is held to be guided by self-gain and/ or for gain of other persons whose lands have been acquired, who would be direct beneficiaries – Moreover, in this PIL, there has been a suppression of material fact – In this PIL, petitioner has not disclosed that he was one of petitioners in WP(C), and that said writ petition contains prayer similar to one made in this PIL – Accordingly, as issues raised in this PIL are directly and substantially in issue in WP(C), therefore, present PIL cannot be proceeded with – Dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
K.R. Surana, J.
Heard Mr. S. Mow, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. K. Ete, learned Additional Advocate General (In-Charge) assisted by Mr. S. Tapin, learned Additional Senior Govt. Advocate appearing for the respondent no.1, Mr. D. Kamduk, learned standing counsel for the respondent nos. 2 and 3 and Mr. M. Kato, learned ASGI, representing the respondent no. 4.
2. By filing this writ petition as a PIL under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the sole petitioner herein is praying for setting aside and quashing of the impugned notification no. LN-62/2011 (Pt.) dated 26.11.2011, published in the Arunachal Pradesh Gazette on 09.01.2012, by which the government had notified the rates for various categories of land and assets for the purpose of payment of compensation for land acquired for the highway project in the State of Arunachal Pradesh. The petitioner has also assailed the notification under Memo No. LN-77/2014 dated 16.04.2016, issued by the Secretary (Land Management), Govt. of Arunachal Pradesh, whereby in pursuance of the cabinet decision dated 20.03.2016, under agenda item no. 01, the Government had notified certain procedures to facilitate the ongoing various road projects in the State by also providing therein that the compensation rates notified on 26.11.2011 shall be applicable for assessment of compensation for Trans-Arunachal Highway and all districts connectivity roads under Special Accelerated Road Development Programme-NE (SARDP-NE), executed by various agencies. Moreover, the petitioner has also prayed for issuance of a mandamus upon the respondent no.2 “to issue a fresh notification under the LARRA for any fresh Acquisition in the Court” (sic.).
3. At the outset, the learned Senior Govt. Advocate had questioned the maintainability of this PIL on the ground that the present petitioner had made a categorical statement in the PIL to the effect that the petitioner had no personal interest in the present litigation and that the petition was not guided by self-gain or for gain of any other person/institution/body and that there is no motive other than that of public interest in filing the writ petition. Similar statement is reiterated in para-4 of the affidavit filed in support of this PIL. The learned Senior Govt. advocate had submitted that the said statement was a false statement on oath because the petitioner herein was also one of the petitioners in WP(C) 361(AP)/ 2017. In this regard, reliance has been placed on page 35 of the said WP(C) 361(AP)/2017 to demonstrate that the land of petitioner was acquired and that his name appeared at serial no. 181 as one of the beneficiaries. The said writ petition was filed on 19.06.2017 and notice of motion was issued by order dated 21.06.2017. It is further submitted that it is a matter of record that as per order dated 28.10.2021, the learned Addl. Senior Govt. Advocate had raised the point that the petitioner in this PIL had filed WPC 361(AP)/2017, wherein the substantive prayer was similar to the prayers made in this PIL. Therefore, vide order dated 28.10.2021, the said writ petition was tagged along with this PIL. Thereafter, on the prayer made by the petitioner, he was granted liberty to move the Single Bench of this Court for making a prayer to strike out the name of the petitioner and accordingly, the records of WP(C) 361(AP)/2017 was de-tagged from the present PIL. Subsequently, on a prayer made by the petitioner, by order dated 20.01.2022, his name was struck off from the said writ petition.
4. Opposing the submission of learned Senior Govt. Advocate in respect of maintainability of the present PIL, it was submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that after his name was struck-off as one of the petitioners in WP(C) 361(AP)/ 2017, it cannot be said that the petitioner is having any surviving interest in any writ petition pending before this Court. Therefore, the petitioner had no personal interest in this PIL.
5. The learned
