THE HIGH COURT OF SIKKIM : GANGTOK
(Civil Extra Ordinary Jurisdiction)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SINGLE BENCH: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BHASKAR RAJ PRADHAN, JUDGE
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
W.P. (C) No. 50 of 2022
1. Shri Matrika Prasad Sharma,
S/o Late Jai Narayan Sharma,
Saramsa Garden,
Chota Singtam,
P.O. Ranipool & P.S. Pakyong,
Sikkim - 737135.
2. Shri Kailash Rana Manger,
S/o Late Man Bahadur Manger,
Chota Singtam,
P.O. Ranipool & P.S. Pakyong,
Sikkim - 737135.
3. Smt. Pavitra Maya Subba,
W/o Late Bhuwani Prasad Subba,
Chota Singtam (Ahopul),
P.O. Ranipool & P.S. Pakyong,
Sikkim - 737135.
...... Petitioners
Versus
1. Union of India,
Through the Secretary,
Ministry of Road Transport and Highways,
Government of India
1, Sansad Marg,
New Delhi - 110001.
2. The National Highways & Infrastructure Development
Corporation Limited PMU, Ranipool,
Through its General Manager (P)
Smile Land, Gidang Busty,
P.S. Ranipool, P.O. Ranipool
East Sikkim - 737135.
3. The District Collector,
District Administrative Centre,
Sichey, Gangtok,
Sikkim - 737101.
4. The District Collector,
District Administrative Centre,
Pakyong,
Sikkim - 737106.
...... Respondents
2
W.P. (C) No. 50 of 2022
Matrika Prasad Sharma & Ors. vs. Union of India & Ors.
Application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appearance:
Mr. N. Rai, Senior Advocate (Legal Aid Counsel) with Mr.
Yozan Rai, Advocate (Legal Aid Counsel), Mr. Pradeep
Tamang and Ms. Tara Devi Chettri, Advocates for the
Petitioners.
Ms. Sangita Pradhan, Deputy Solicitor General of India
assisted by Ms. Natasha Pradhan and Ms. Purnima
Subba, Advocates for Respondent no. 1.
Mr. Debal Kumar Banerji, Senior Advocate with Ms. Gita
Bista and Ms. Pratikcha Gurung, Advocates and Ms.
Sangita Pradhan, Deputy Solicitor General of India
assisted by Ms. Natasha Pradhan and Ms. Purnima
Subba, Advocates for Respondent no.2.
Dr. Doma T. Bhutia, Additional Advocate General for
Respondent nos. 3 & 4.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date of hearing : 17.05.2023
Date of judgment : 29.05.2023
JUDGMENT
Bhaskar Raj Pradhan, J.
1. The three Writ Petitioners claim to be owners of
various landed properties in the newly formed Pakyong
District of Sikkim. The Petitioners state that although the
Respondent No.1 has issued various Notifications under
the provisions of the National Highways Act, 1956 declaring
its intention to acquire land for building (widening/two
laning, etc.) including the bypasses, maintenance,
management and operation of Ranipool-Pakyong Road
National Highway No.717A, and thereafter declaring those
lands to have vested with the Central Government, the
properties of the Petitioners have not been notified for
acquisition. It is alleged that, in the month of February, 3 W.P. (C) No. 50 of 2022 Matrika Prasad Sharma & Ors. vs. Union of India & Ors.
2020, few officials of Respondent No.1 visited the house of
the Petitioners without any prior notice, surveyed the area
and thereafter in December, 2021, they were called to the
Office of the Respondent No.3 and informed about
compensation in respect of their structures set up on their
lands near the Highway. According to the Petitioners, the
compensation offered were unjust. Subsequently, it is
alleged that Respondent No.4 visited the land of the
Petitioners and asked them to vacate their premises
immediately and were also issued Notice dated 24.10.2022
stating that the properties has been acquired by the
Respondent No.2 for construction/upgradation of existing
lane to two lane road with paved shoulder NH-717A,
including geometric improvement from Ranipool-Pakyong
kilometre 0.00 to kilometre 16.167 in the State of Sikkim. It
is in these circumstances that the Petitioners have
approached this Court seeking a direction upon the
Respondents to acquire the landed properties of the
Petitioners by the sides of Ranipool-Pakyong Road by due
process of law before taking their physical possession. The
Respondents contests the Writ Petition on various grounds
including that the Petitioners have encroached the road
reserve.
2. The Petitioner no.1 is the owner of khatiyan plot
no.36 with an area of .1000 hectare and khatiyan plot 4 W.P. (C) No. 50 of 2022 Matrika Prasad Sharma & Ors. vs. Union of India & Ors.
no.44 with an area of .1440 hectare, totalling to .2440
hectare in Chota Singtam, Naitam, Gangtok, Sikkim. This
fact is clearly recorded in Parcha Khatiyan no.82.
3. The Petitioner no.2 is the owner of khatiyan plot
no.64/768 with an area of .0120 hectare situated at Chota
Singtam, Naitam, Gangtok, Sikkim. This fact is clearly
recorded in Parcha Khatiyan no.52/187.
4. The Petitioner no.3 is the owner of khatiyan plot
no.47/844 with an area of .0232 hectare; khatiyan plot
no.48/845 with an area of .0161 hectare and khatiyan plot
no.49/846 with an area of .0030 hectare, totalling to .0423
hectare situated at Chota Singtam, Naitam, Gangtok,
Sikkim. This fact is clearly recorded in Parcha Khatiyan
no.59/229.
5. During the course of the final hearing, the
Learned Additional Advocate General for the Respondents
No.3 and 4 and Learned Senior Advocate appearing for
Respondent No.2 submit that they have no issue if the
Petitioners restrict their claim to the respective Parcha
Khatiyans and that they are willing to ensure that they do
not carry out any of their activities in the areas specified in
the Parcha Khatiyans to be the landed properties of the
Petitioners.
5
W.P. (C) No. 50 of 2022 Matrika Prasad Sharma & Ors. vs. Union of India & Ors.
6. The Learned Senior Advocate for the Petitioners,
on instructions received from the Petitioners, submit that if
this Court would protect their ownership rights as reflected
in the respective Parcha Khatiyans, they would not protest
the Project Work undertaken by the Respondents of
expanding the National Highway.
7. In view of the clear understanding between the
parties, this Court deems it appropriate to dispose of the
Writ Petition without examining the merits of the issues
raised by the parties by allowing the Respondents to
continue with the infrastructural project of expansion of
the National Highway duly ensuring that they do not
infringe upon the Petitioners' rights of ownership of the plot
numbers, as specified above, without following the due
process of law.
8. The Writ Petition is disposed of in the above
terms. No orders as to costs.
10. The order of status quo passed by this Court on
18.11.2022 hereby stands vacated. Pending applications
stand disposed of accordingly.
( Bhaskar Raj Pradhan )
Judge
Approved for reporting : Yes
Internet : Yes
ml/
