The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for fair compensation and due process of law for land acquisition, emphasizing the constitutional right to property and the obligation of the state to provide just compensation for public purpose.

1. In Mohinder Singh Gill and another vs. The Chief Election Commissioner, New Delhi and others, reported in AIR 1978 SC 851, Krishna Iyer, J, speaking for the bench, has observed as under:

“Once we understand the soul of the rule as fair play in action-and it is so-we must hold that it extends to both the fields. After all, administrative power in a democratic set-up is not allergic to fairness in action and discretionary executive justice cannot degenerate into unilateral injustice. Nor is there ground to be frightened of delay, inconvenience and expense, if natural justice gains access. For fairness itself is a flexible, pragmatic and relative concept, not a rigid, ritualistic or sophisticated abstraction. It is not a bull in a china shop, nor a bee in one's bonnet. Its essence is good conscience in a given situation; nothing more-- but nothing less.”

2. This court is reminded of that passage when confronted with the challenge raised by the petitioners in this writ petition. The petitioners have inherited some land situated in Mouja Brajapur, Tehsil Uttar Charilam, Sub-Division: Bishalragh, District: Sepahijala and comprised in Khatian No.1659/1 and 1659/2. Without any process or acquisition or without any consent of the petitioners, their land has been taken over, occupied and thereafter the road called “Chowmuhani to Chandrapara” [Road No.L048] has been constructed.

3. The petitioners have discovered the information gathered from a disclosure made under Right to Information Act on 12.07.2013 that the respondent No.8, Bishalgarh Panchayet Samiti has given a declaration that for the proposed link road as per ANN1 that the land will be made available free of cost along the alignment of the roads. In the said certificate [Annexure-A/3 to the writ petition] it has been further asserted as under:

“Moreover, it is proclaimed by the undersigned in case any problem arises in future for taking up the construction work of proposed roads, the Panchayat Samiti will take up this matter with amicable solution in heart and soul.”

4. The petitioners served a notice on 07.03.2014 to the various authorities on 07.03.2014 [Annexure-A/5 to the writ petition] stating that even though their land has been utilized for construction of the road “Chowmuhani to Chandrapara” [Road No.LO48] but they have not been paid any compensation even though the utilized land consists largely of cultivated paddy land which is one of their source of livelihood. In the paragraph-6 of the said notice, it has been asserted that:

“That, taking over of the lands belonging to my clients above named as Notice Givers for the construction of the road “Chowmuhani to Chandrapara (Road No. L048)” without paying a single penny to my clients as compensation for depriving them of their livelihood is unconstitutional and violative of the fundamental rights guaranteed by the Constitution of India to every citizen of India.”

5. By the said notice, sent through the one advocate, a fortnight time was set up for the response by the authorities mentioned in the same notice. When they did not make any response, the petitioner have approached this court urging for initiating the land acquisition proceeding for the land that has been utilized in construction of the road “Chowmuhani to Chandrapara” [Road No.LO48] under the Pradhan Mantri Gram Sadak Yojna (PMGSY) within a reasonable time for purpose of providing the just compensation. The petitioners have filed their document being the record of right, Khatian No.1659/1 and 1659/2 to show that the land which has been utilized without any acquisition or consent of the petitioner originally belonged to their father Harinanda Debbarma who died on 25.12.1971 and the petitioners have become the owner that land by in heritence.

6. The respondent No.8, Bishalgarh Panchayet Samity has filed their reply separately and stated, inter alia, that the writ petition is not maintainable inasmuch as according to the guidelines of PMGSY, no fund is