Back
Orders Investigation Into NH-208 Land Dispute Over Signature Authenticity
The has directed the to conduct a detailed investigation into a land acquisition dispute concerning the NH-208 project, after the petitioner—an illiterate woman—raised serious doubts about the authenticity of her signature and an email used by the authorities to claim joint verification. The Court observed that the disputed factual issues required deeper investigation beyond the scope of ordinary .
A Landowner’s Plea for Justice
The petitioner, Smt. Meri Kalai @ Mary Kalai, claimed ownership and possession of 0.740 acres of land under Khatian No. 720. Out of this, 0.498 acres was acquired for the NH-208 project under Award No. 1248 dated , leaving 0.242 acres with her. She alleged that the remaining portion, never acquired, was being utilised for the project without any acquisition or compensation. Despite her requests, no proper survey, physical verification, or demarcation was conducted, and boundary pillars were not fixed.
Seeking protection of her remaining land and lawful compensation, she approached the High Court, praying for a GPS/geo-tracking survey, physical verification, and demarcation of the acquired area, along with an interim stoppage of construction until the survey was completed.
Competing Claims and a Disputed Document
The petitioner’s counsel, , contended that while the Land Acquisition Officer paid compensation for the acquired portion, the authorities were using the unacquired land without any lawful process. She argued that despite multiple notices and even prior High Court directions, no accurate measurement had been undertaken.
In response, the State’s counsel, , produced a document titled Statement of Smt. Meri Kalai dated , and a copy of an e-mail dated . He submitted that a joint verification and demarcation had been conducted, and the petitioner had signed the statement and later expressed satisfaction via email.
This submission was vehemently opposed by Ms. Majumder, who argued that the petitioner is an illiterate lady, unacquainted with English, and incapable of writing or understanding the language. She further questioned the veracity of the e-mail, noting that the petitioner has no access to the internet.
Court’s Apprehension and Call for Investigation
Justice Dr. T. Amarnath Goud expressed serious apprehension over the disputed facts, stating:
“This submission advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner has raised serious apprehension to this court. In view of the and with regard to the land acquisition matter where compensation is paid, this court is under reasonable apprehension that genuine land occupants shall not be deprived of their legitimate right upon their land and, in the event if there is any involvement or role of any middleman, such needs to be looked into and eradicated.”
The Court emphasised that it must be guided by principles of , and that the core issue required a deep investigation rather than a . Noting that High Courts generally do not conduct extensive evidence or , the Court exercised its to refer the matter to the .
What the Court Ordered
The High Court directed the concerned department to assign the matter to a Senior Officer of the for investigation. The was specifically instructed to send the disputed documents for and . After completion of the investigation, the concerned officer shall submit a report to the District Magistrate and Collector, who shall then initiate further action and decide the petitioner’s grievance in accordance with law.
The writ petition was disposed of in these terms, with all pending applications also disposed of.
This judgment underscores the court’s willingness to go beyond procedural barriers when genuine doubts about documentary authenticity arise, especially when vulnerable litigants—such as illiterate persons—are involved. The referral to the ensures that the factual matrix is thoroughly examined, safeguarding the rights of the landowner against potential exploitation.
