SHOUGRAK
Digitally signed by
IN. 39
SHOUGRAKPAM
PAM
DEVANANDA
DEVANAND SINGH
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR
Date: 2024.04.30
A SINGH
15:22:42 +05'30'
AT IMPHAL
WP(C) No. 69 of 2024
ID Gambui & ors. Petitioners
…
Vs.
Union of India & ors. s
… Respondent
B E F O R E
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AHANTHEM BIMOL SINGH
O R D E R
30-04-2024
[1] Heard Mr. Serto T. Kom, learned counsel appearing for the
petitioners, Mr. S. Vijayanand Sharma, learned senior panel counsel
appearing for the respondents No. 1 and 4 and Mr. Niranjan Sanasam,
learned GA appearing for the respondents No. 2 and 3.
[2] The brief facts of the present case is that the petitioners filed a
representation dated 31-07-2023 to the Secretary (Ministry of Road,
Transport and Highways), Transport Bhawan claiming for payment of
adequate compensation to them for the private lands and other standing
properties therein belonging to the petitioners, which were affected by the
construction of NH-137. When the concerned authorities failed to consider
and dispose of the said representation, the petitioners approached this
court earlier by filing a writ petition being WP(C) No. 640 of 2023 for
redressing their grievances. The said writ petition was disposed of by this
court by an order dated 14-09-2023 by directing the Secretary (Ministry of
Road, Transport and Highways), Government of India to consider the said
representation dated 31-07-2023 submitted by the petitioners on its own
merit and strictly in terms of the applicable law and to dispose of the same
by issuing a speaking order within a stipulated period of three months from
the date of receipt of a certified copy of the order.
In compliance with the said direction given by this court, the
Ministry of Road, Transport and Highways issued an order dated
11-01-2024 thereby declining to grant any compensation as claimed by the
WP(C) No. 69 of 2024 Contd…/-
-2-
petitioners and by rejecting the said representation. Having been
aggrieved, the petitioners approached this court again by filing the present
writ petition assailing the said impugned order dated 11-01-2024 and also
praying for issuing a direction to the respondent No. 1 to re-consider and
dispose of the aforesaid representation dated 31-07-2023 submitted by the
petitioners.
[3] Mr. Serto T. Kom, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners
submitted that the ground or reason given by the authorities while rejecting
the representation submitted by the petitioners are given at para. 13 of the
said order, which reads as under:-
The claim of the petitioners, that the NOC were issued
“
exclusively in respect of community/ village lands and not for
private lands, is contrary to the records and facts as analysed
hereinabove. The NOCs have been issued unequivocally and
unambiguously with respect to the land or standing properties
for the required width of road including the dumping area, be it
community land or private land. In fact, it is very clear that the
said lands have been transferred to NHIDCL on Zero LA
‘
Compensation for construction of the road, to improve the
’
connectivity in the said area.
”
[4] It has been submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the
petitioners that the NOC relied on by the authorities while rejecting the
representation confines to only lands and other properties belonging to the
village and does not include the private lands belonging to the petitioners
and that the village lands or standing properties for which compensation
are being claimed by the petitioners are beyond the ambit of the said NOC.
It has also been submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the
petitioners that without holding any verification process, the authorities
have rejected the said representation and as such, the learned counsel
submitted that the impugned order is not sustainable in the eyes of law and
the same deserves to be quash and set aside. The learned counsel
further submitted that the respondents may further be directed to
re-consider the said representation submitted by the petitioners after
WP(C) No. 69 of 2024 Contd…/-
-3-
holding the verification process with regard to the claims made by the
petitioners.
[5] This court carefully examined the contents of the No Objection
Certificate, which are enclosed as Annexure-A/1 to the present writ petition
and which had been relied on by the respondent No. 1 while rejecting the
said representation submitted by the petitioners. On perusal of the said
No Objection Certificate, it is crystal clear that the No Objection Certificate
is with regard to the space for the dumping area and for the first phase of
the double lane. According to the learned counsel appearing for the
petitioners, the said NOC cannot cover the private lands of the petitioners
and the village authorities cannot act on behalf of the petitioners with
regard to the lands and other standing properties belonging to the
petitioners and such NOC cannot waive the right of the petitioners for
claiming compensation for their private lands which has been affected by
the construction of NH-137.
[6] On careful examination of the record, this court found that the
authorities have rejected the representation submitted by the petitioners on
the ground that No Objection Certificate has been given to them
relinquishing any right of the individuals residing in the said village for
claiming any compensation with regard to the lands and standing
properties for the required width of the road including the space for the
dumping area for the first phase of the double lane with paved shoulders.
[7] In my considered view, the authorities have based their decision
on the basis of the said NOC and this court find no infirmity in the reason
given by the authorities. If it is the case of the petitioners that the said NOC
given by the Chairman or Secretary of the Village authorities are not
binding to the petitioners with regard to their right for claiming
compensation of the lands and standing properties belonging to the
petitioners, which has been affected by the construction of the NH-137,
they can file appropriate proceeding claiming for such compensation in the
appropriate forum by establishing their right and title. In the present case,
WP(C) No. 69 of 2024 Contd…/-
-4-
as the petitioners have only prayed for quashing the impugned order
rejecting their representation and for issuing a direction to re-consider the
representation submitted by them and as this court did not find any infirmity
in the impugned order, this court is not inclined to grant the relief sought
for in the present writ petition. Accordingly, the present writ petition is
hereby dismissed. It is, however, made clear that rejection of this writ
petition will not bar the petitioners for claiming compensation for the lands
and standing properties belonging to them in accordance with the
procedure established by law.
JUDGE
Devananda
WP(C) No. 69 of 2024 Contd…/-
SHOUGRAK Digitally signed by
SHOUGRAKPAM IN. 40
PAM
DEVANANDA
DEVANAND SINGH
Date: 2024.04.30 IN THE HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR
A SINGH
15:23:03 +05'30'
AT IMPHAL
MC(WP(C)) No. 41 of 2024
(Ref:- WP(C) No. 69 of 2024)
ID Gambui & ors. Petitioners
…
Vs.
Union of India & ors. s
… Respondent
B E F O R E
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AHANTHEM BIMOL SINGH
O R D E R
30-04-2024
In view of the order passed today in the connected writ petition,
the present application stands closed.
JUDGE
Devananda
WP(C) No. 69 of 2024 Contd…/-