High Court of Meghalaya
State Of Meghalaya & Ors vs . Surmamon Nongbri & Ors on 29 February, 2024
Author: W. Diengdoh
Bench: W. Diengdoh
Serial No.02
Supplementary List
HIGH COURT OF MEGHALAYA
AT SHILLONG
MC (WA) No.2/2024 in
WA No.14/2023
Date of Order: 29.02.2024
State of Meghalaya & ors Vs. Surmamon Nongbri & ors
Surmamon Nongbri & ors Vs. State of Meghalaya & ors
Coram:
Hon'ble Mr. Justice S. Vaidyanathan, Chief Justice
Hon'ble Mr. Justice W. Diengdoh, Judge
Appearance:
For the Applicants : Mr. A. Kumar, Advocate General with
Mr. N.D. Chullai, AAG
Ms. R. Colney, GA
Mr. E.R. Chyne, GA
For the Respondents : Mr. H.L. Shangreiso, Sr.Adv with
Mr. P.K. Shati, Adv
Mr. T. Dkhar, Adv
ORDER:
(Made by Hon'ble Chief Justice)
The present application has been filed by the State to implead
the proposed respondents as party respondent Nos.14, 15, 16 and 17 to
the writ appeal.
2. Learned Advocate General submitted that the land in
question has already been donated and that the area in question has been
taken over for the purpose of constructing a dam, pursuant to which, the
process of construction of dam has been completed. He also submitted
that on account of construction of the dam, nearly 21 villages are
benefitted, as they are getting water supply from the said dam. It is also
submitted that after a delay of eight years, the writ petitioners have
approached this Court, seeking compensation, which they are otherwise
not entitled to. It is his submission that with the aid provided by the
Central Government for constructing the dam, the State Government
also jointly contributed fund for completion of the dam. It is vehemently
argued by the learned Advocate General that it is absolutely necessary to
hear all Headmen before taking a decision in this Writ Appeal, as they
have donated lands, which belong to the community.
3. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondents in the
application strenuously contended that the entire land belongs to
individuals and that the Government had initially decided to acquire the
lands, but for the reasons best known to them, they have not utilized the
land for the purpose for which it was acquired, due to which, lands have
got submerged in the flood and therefore, the land owners are entitled to
compensation. Learned Senior Counsel further contended that
approximately a sum of Rs.7 Crores was initially offered by the
Government towards compensation payable to the parties concerned,
which had not ultimately materialized and that the land owners are
entitled to higher compensation than the one offered by the Government.
4. At this juncture, we are not inclined to go into the merits of
the contentions raised on either side. The only point now to be decided
in this application is as to whether there is a requirement in impleading
concerned parties so as to ascertain whether the lands belong to the
community or individuals. We are of the view that without impleading
necessary parties to the lis, no clear picture can be drawn as to the
disbursement of compensation, as rightly pointed out by the learned
Advocate General and therefore, Headmen are necessary parties to be
heard in this Writ Appeal.
5. It is stated across the bar that lands have been donated and
therefore, it is imperative for this Court to ascertain about the quantum
of compensation, more particularly, in terms of the offer made by the
Government. When this Court posed a question to the learned Advocate
General regarding payment of compensation of Rs.7 Crores together
with interest in order to give quietus to the matter, he replied that after
hearing the Headmen and identifying individuals, if any, there can be a
salutation in respect of payment of compensation to the actual persons.
He further replied that the payment of compensation cannot be construed
that the Government has agreed for the exorbitant compensation, as
demanded by the respondents/writ petitioners.
6. Learned counsel for the respondents, in support of his
contention that there is no necessity to implead parties, whose presence
is not at all required for adjudicating the case, has relied upon the
judgments of the Supreme Court in the case of Narinderjit Singh Sahni
v. Union of India reported in (2002) 2 SCC 210, Chander Kanta
Bansal v. Rajinder Singh Anand reported in (2008) 5 SCC 117 and
Vidur Impex & Traders Private Limited v. Tosh Apartments
Private Limited reported in (2012) 8 SCC 384, out of which, one
relates to a Criminal Case and two relate to CPC. It is pertinent to
mention here that the powers of the Court cannot be curtailed by mere
procedures laid down therein, as the livelihood of the respondents herein
/ writ petitioners and their entitlement to compensation cannot be
deprived on account of non-payment of compensation by the
Government, if they are otherwise eligible in accordance with law.
7. In the result, the Application in MC (WA) No.2 of 2024 for
impleadment is ordered, as prayed for. The Headmen shown in the
impleading application are impleaded as party Respondent Nos.14 to 17
only in the representative capacity of Headmen and not in their
individual capacity.
8. Issue Notice to the impleaded respondents returnable by
20.03.2024. The Appellants shall serve copies of necessary papers /
documents on the newly impleaded respondents 14 to 17, in order to
enable them to file their objections.
9. Registry is directed to carry out necessary amendment in the
main Writ Appeal and post the matter for hearing on 20.03.2024.
(W. Diengdoh) (S. Vaidyanathan)
Judge Chief Justice
Meghalaya
29.02.2024
"Lam DR-PS"
