HIGH COURT OF MEGHALAYA AT SHILLONG
W. Diengdoh, J.
Philamon Nongbet - Appellant
Versus
Union of India & Ors. - Respondents
WP(C) No. 118 of 2018
Decided On : 30-03-2022
Land Acquisition - Compensation - Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - Sections 6, 23 - Negligence - Absolute Liability
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner's land was affected by the construction of a bypass road, resulting in damages to her property. The petitioner sought compensation for the damages caused by the negligence of the National Highway Authority of India (NHAI).
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner's land was indeed damaged due to the construction activities of the NHAI, as evidenced by inspection reports and photographs. The court held the NHAI liable for the damages and directed them to compensate the petitioner.
Issues: The main issue was whether the NHAI was negligent in causing damages to the petitioner's land and if the petitioner was entitled to compensation under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.
Ratio Decidendi: The court applied the principle of 'absolute liability' and the doctrine of negligence, emphasizing the NHAI's duty of care towards the petitioner's land. The court relied on the inspection reports and the case of Creamson War v. Union of India & Ors to establish the NHAI's liability.
Final Decision: The court directed the NHAI to compensate the petitioner with the assessed amount of Rs. 8,40,572 within four weeks.
JUDGMENT
1. What could be gathered from the averments made in this petition is that the petitioner is the owner of a plot of land at Lum Umpih, Umsning, Ri-Bhoi District and the adjacent land was owned by her sister Smti. Sainara Nongbet.
2. The petitioner has also stated that she has since developed her land with the construction of an Assam type 2 BHK cottage, a swimming pool and a proper farm which consists of a fishery, cow sheds, poultry, piggery as well as a duck and swan pond amongst others.
3. For the purpose of construction of a 4(four) lane Umsning bypass on the Shillong-Guwahati highway, the respondent No. 4 (District Collector) had initiated land acquisition proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 during the year 2010. In the process, the land of the petitioner's sister was acquired, while the land of the petitioner which was adjacent was not acquired. However, in the declaration under Section 6 of the said Land Acquisition Act, dated 25.02.2014 issued by the Deputy Secretary to the Government of Meghalaya, Revenue & Disaster Management Department, the name of the petitioner appeared at serial No. 63, 66, 67, & 69, which is actually the land belonging to Smti. Sainara Nongbet. Smti Sainara Nongbet has accordingly clarified this fact by way of a letter addressed to the Deputy Commissioner, Ri-Bhoi District dated 06.05.2014 and eventually, the land compensation award for the said plots mentioned above was received by the said Smti Sainara Nongbet.
4. The respondent No 5, the National Highway Authority of India (NHAI) then took over the land acquired and commenced with the construction of the said bypass. In the process of construction of the said road, huge amount of earth was dumped in the land of the petitioner without taking any precautionary measures of construction of a retaining wall to contain the spillage into the land of the petitioner. In fact, soil which was dumped beyond the land acquired resulted in tonnes of soil, rocks and other debris being deposited into the petitioner's land. Drains which directly discharged unto the land of the petitioner were constructed without any outlets, again resulting in silt and mud flowing thereby destroying the cultivation, piggery structure and the fish pond being filled with mud and silt.
5. To this effect, the petitioner had submitted a representation to the respondent No. 4 on 25.01.2018 for redressal of her grievances, however no action was taken even to cause inspection to ascertain the extent of the damages, which compelled the petitioner to approach this Court with this petition.
6. The respondent No 5, on receipt of notice has filed a counter affidavit refuting the assertions of the petitioner, and has also filed a number of additional affidavits at every juncture where it considered necessary to do so.
7. It may be mentioned that this Court in course of these proceedings has, vide order dated 01.11.2018 directed that inspection be carried out to ascertain the extent of the damage in the land of the petitioner and again, on 24.04.2019 has directed the respondent No. 4 to fix a date for another inspection with advance intimation to the parties concerned. The same has been complied with and the Inspection Report dated 09.05.2019 was brought on record by the respondent No. 4 by way of an additional affidavit dated 26.06.2019.
8. The report dated 09.05.2019 filed on the basis of the inspection conducted on 07.05.2019 is reproduced herein for better clarity:
'SITE INSPECTION REPORT AND ASSEMMENT OF DAMAGE DUE TO CONSTRUCTION OF 4- LANE BY NAHI IN THE LAND OF Dr. (Mrs). PHILAMON NONGBET, LUMUMPIH, UMSNING BYE PASS.
In pursuance of your letter No. DCRB (LA) 43/2018/Rev/67/848: dated Nongpoh, the 30th April, 2019, the undersigned have re-conducted inspection along with the Officials from NHAI, Agriculture, Horticulture, PWD (Building) and Fisheries Department on the 7th May, 2019 and it is found that the land/structures and crops of Dr. (Mrs). Philamon Nongbet at Lum Umph
AI
The main legal principle established is the application of 'absolute liability' and the doctrine of negligence in cases of damage caused by construction activities, holding the responsible party liab....
The court clarified that ownership disputes regarding land acquisition must be resolved by the competent revenue authority, not through a writ petition under Article 226.
Rights of property must be compensated when construction causes damage beyond the right of way, violating Articles 14, 21, and 300A of the Constitution.
The court emphasized the importance of due process of law and the right to fair compensation in land acquisition proceedings, as guaranteed by the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land ....
Forceful dispossession and use of private land for public purpose without following due process of law violates the constitutional right under Article 300A, and delay cannot negate the claim for comp....
The court emphasized the importance of providing sufficient opportunity to the petitioner and considering all contentions and documents in accordance with law.
Once land is acquired and vests in the state, compensation obligations persist and cannot be negated by later claims of non-utilization.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.