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. 25 of 2022
1. Shri Man Kumar Basnett,
S/o Late Damber Basnett,
Pachey Samsing,
P.O. & P.S. Pakyong,
Sikkim - 737106.
2. Shri Prakash Subba,
S/o Late Nandu Raj Subba,
Aho Yangtam,
P.O. Ranipool and P.S. Pakyong,
Sikkim - 737135.
3. Shri Bal Kumar Rai,
S/o Late Chandra Lal Rai,
Chota Singtam (Ahopul),
P.O. Ranipool and P.S. Pakyong,
Sikkim - 737136.
...... Petitioners
Versus
1. Union of India,
Through the Secretary,
Ministry of Road Transport and Highways,
Government of India
1, Sansad Marg,
New Delhi- 110 001.
2. National Highways and Infrastructure Development
Corporation Limited PMU, Ranipool,
Through the General Manager (P)
Smile land, Gidang Busty,
P.S. Ranipool, P.O._Ranipool
East Sikkim, 737 135.
3. District Collector (Competent Authority, Land
Acquisition),
Office of the District Collector,
Gangtok,
Sikkim- 737 101.
4. District Collector,
Office of the District Collector,
Pakyong District, Pakyong,
Sikkim- 737 106.
...... Respondents
2
W.P. (C) No. 25 of 2022
Mr. Man Kumar Basnett & 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 3 W.P. (C) No. 25 of 2022 Mr. Man Kumar Basnett & Ors. vs. Union of India & Ors.
acquisition. It is alleged that however the Respondent No.2
while taking up the work for widening of the road has
started marking, digging and cutting huge portions of their
landed properties. It is further alleged that when
confronted, the Respondents No.3 and 4 insisted that the
road reserve, as per law, was 50 feet from the centre of the
road for National Highways. The Petitioners contend that it
is not so. Being aggrieved, the Petitioners have approached
this Court by filing the present Writ Petition seeking a
direction upon the Respondents to acquire the landed
properties of the Petitioners by the sides of the Ranipool-
Pakyong Road by due process of law. 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.269 with an area of 0.0400 hectare and khatiyan plot
no. 290/2435 with an area of 0.1568 hectare, totalling to
0.1968 hectare in Pachey Samsing Block, Pakyong Elakha
and Pakyong District, Sikkim. This fact is clearly recorded
in Parcha Khatiyan no.813.
3. The Petitioner no.2 is the owner of khatiyan plot
no.83 with an area of .0720 hectare; khatiyan plot no.95
with an area of .8320 hectare and khatiyan plot no.125
with an area of .2880 hectare totalling to 1.1920 hectare 4 W.P. (C) No. 25 of 2022 Mr. Man Kumar Basnett & Ors. vs. Union of India & Ors.
situated at Yentam Block, Naitam Elakha, Pakyong
District, Sikkim. This fact is clearly recorded in Parcha
Khatiyan no.118.
4. The Petitioner no.3 is the owner of khatiyan plot
no.48/751 with an area of .0080 hectare; khatiyan plot
no.903/955 with an area of .0120 hectare; khatiyan plot
no.904/956 with an area of .0060 hectare; khatiyan plot
no.46/1013 with an area of .0200 hectare and khatiyan
plot no.47/1014 with an area of .0250 hectare, totalling to
.0710 hectare situated at Chota Singtam, Naitam Elakha,
Pakyong District, Sikkim. This fact is clearly recorded in
Parcha Khatiyan no.159/169.
5. During the course of the final hearing, the
Learned Additional Advocate General for the Respondents
No.3 and 4 and the 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.
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 5 W.P. (C) No. 25 of 2022 Mr. Man Kumar Basnett & Ors. vs. Union of India & Ors.
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.
9. No orders as to costs.
10. The order of status quo passed by this Court on
22.11.2022 in I.A. No.01 of 2022 hereby stands vacated.
Pending applications stand disposed of accordingly.
( Bhaskar Raj Pradhan )
Judge
Approved for reporting : Yes
Internet : Yes
ml/
