Serial No.02 HIGH COURT OF MEGHALAYA Daily List AT SHILLONG WA No.74/2025 Date of order: 03.12.2025 Balpakram A.king Nokmas Social welfare Association represented by its Attorney Smti. Ruthilla R. Marak ..... Appellant Vs.

1. The State of Meghalaya represented by the Chief Conservator of the Forest (Wildlife), Shillong.

2. The Secretary Forest Department, Government of Meghalaya, Shillong.

3. The Commissioner and Secretary, Revenue Department, Government of Meghalaya, Shillong.

4. The Collector, Baghmara, South Garo Hills District.

5. Union of India represented by the Secretary, Forest and Environment, Government of India, New Delhi. .... Respondents Coram:

Hon’ble Mr. Justice Soumen Sen, Chief Justice Hon’ble Mr. Justice H.S. Thangkhiew, Judge Appearance:

For the Appellant : Mr. P. Yobin, Adv with Mr. B. Komi, Adv For the Respondents : Mr. S. Sen, Sr.GA with Mr. A.H. Kharwanlang, Addl.Sr.GA Ms. K. Gurung, Adv vice Dr. N. Mozika, DSGI i) Whether approved for Yes/No reporting in Law journals etc.:

ii) Whether approved for publication Yes/No in press:

JUDGMENT: (per the Hon’ble, the Chief Justice) (Oral)

The appeal arises out of an order dated 06.06.2025 passed by the learned single judge in a writ petition in which the Association has challenged the decision of the Deputy Commissioner, South Garo Hills, Baghmara dated 04.03.2019. The writ petition was dismissed on the ground that it was barred by the principle of res judicata.

2. The learned single judge has referred to the order passed earlier in the writ petition filed by the present appellant, being WP (C)No.315(SH)2002, disposed of by the Hon’ble Mr. Justice T. Vaiphei on 02.03.2011.

3. The learned counsel for the appellant while accepting that there is an observation in paragraph 3 which have recorded that the appellant has not availed the remedy within the period of limitation, subsequent order dated 11.02.2019 has been passed in a writ petition being WP(C)No.500 of 2018, where the learned single judge allowed the prayer of the appellant with regard to consideration of the representation made by the Association for enhancement of compensation. It is submitted that the decision of the Deputy Commissioner, South Garo Hills, Baghmara dated 04.03.2019 has given a fresh cause of action for consideration.

4. The learned counsel for the State in opposing the prayer has referred to paragraph 3 of the judgment passed by the Gauhati High Court on 02.03.2011 while disposing of a series of writ petitions and submits that there is a categorical finding in the earlier proceeding that there has been an inordinate delay of almost seven to fifteen years in challenging the quantum of compensation awarded and no attempt was made to avail the remedy under Section 18 of the Act for reference by the Collector to the Land Acquisition Court and by reason thereof, the appellant’s has forfeited her right to challenge the said proceeding at this distant point of time. In order to appreciate the arguments made by the parties, it is necessary to refer to paragraph 3 of the order dated 02.03.2011 passed by the learned single judge in disposing of a series of writ petitions concerning similar issues. The said paragraph is set out below:

“3. Now, from the own pleadings of the petitioner, it becomes obvious that the landowners represented by it are aggrieved by the quantum of compensation awarded to them between 1991-92 and 1995-96. In my opinion, it is now too late in the day to challenge the award made some seven to fifteen years before. Moreover, if the petitioner is really aggrieved by the quantum of compensation so awarded, it had the remedy under Section 18 of the Act for reference by the Collector to the Land Acquisition Court provided that it was filed within the period of limitation prescribed thereunder. Having not done so, the writ petition is so far as 352 sq.km is concerned is barred by non-exhaustion of an alternative statutory remedy. As for 114.85 sq.km of the Akhing land, the State respondents at par