Forcibly taking over the land of a private individual without following due process of law, even for public purpose, is a violation of the constitutional right of the private individual under Article 300A of the Constitution of India.

Judgment

Heard Mr. S.P. Mahanta, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. R. Gurung, learned GA appearing for the respondents No. 1, 2, 3 & 7. Also heard Mr. H. Kharmih, learned counsel for the respondents No. 4-6. This is the third round of litigation the petitioner had approached this Court for a direction to the respondents to complete the land acquisition proceeding for acquiring her land measuring 218 mtrs in length and 7 in mtrs breadth, which is, at present, used by the villagers as an approached road. It is stated in the writ petition, which is not denied by the respondents that the petitioner's land measuring 218 mtrs in length and 7 mtrs in breadth had been used for construction of the village road i.e. Twah-U-Sdiah Village. The petitioner had earlier approached this Court by filing a writ petition being WP(C) No. 252(SH)2003 against the present respondents and the said writ petition had been disposed of vide judgment and order dated 08.09.2008, by directing the State respondents to take up land acquisition proceeding under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 for acquiring the said land of the petitioner which had already been used for construction of the road and erection of poles with electric wires. For convenience, the earlier order of this Court dated 08.09.2008 is quoted hereunder:-

8.9.2008

Heard Mr. S.P. Mahanta, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. S. Sen, learned counsel for respondent Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 6. Also heard Mr. H. Kharmih, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 4 and 5.

The facts of the above case are very simple, not complicated. In pursuit of Local Area Development Fund of MLA, 7-War Jaiñtia Constituency, it is stated by the petitioner that the State PWD constructed a road upto Twah-U-Sdiah Village over the land of the petitioner measuring 218 mtrs length and 7 mtrs breadth, sometime, in the last part of 2002 during the subsistence of an interim order dated 22.11.2002 passed by this Court in WP(C) No. 422 (SH)2002 which was subsequently vacated on 19.05.2003.

The grievance of the petitioner is that the State PWD has encroached upon her land while constructing the road mentioned above and in addition to that, the MeSEB authorities have also erected electric poles with electric wires passing through the land of the petitioner without acquiring the land and without paying any form of rent and, as such, a direction is sought from this Court for appropriate order in accordance with law.

The respondents-the State Government, the State PWD and the MeSEB have not filed any counter affidavit disputing/controverting the averments made in the writ petition by the writ petitioner.

In the circumstances stated above, this Court is of the opinion that construction of road on the land of the petitioner and erection of electric poles with wires passing through the land of the petitioner without acquiring the land is not permissible in law and, accordingly, the respondents, particularly respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3 are directed to take land acquisition proceeding under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 for acquiring the land covered by the aforesaid construction and erection of poles with electric wires passing through the land of the petitioner and pay adequate compensation to her.

In view of the fact that the land belonging to the petitioner had been encroached upon in the matter stated above since 2002, it is made clear that the land acquisition proceeding shall be completed within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. In case the Collector is not above to complete the proceeding within the time stipulated by this Court, the Collector may approach this Court again for extension of time.

With the above, the writ petition stands disposed of.

2. The present respondents No. 4-6 preferred an appeal being Writ Appeal No. 44(SH)2008 before the Division Bench against the said judgment and order of the learned Single Judge dated 08.09.2008, which had been quoted above in e