Shri. Janglalung and Anr v. The Union of India and 9 Ors

ORDER Date : 07.06.2024

Heard Mr. Pakinrichapbo, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioners and Mr. Sentiyanger, the learned Standing counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent Nos. 1, 8 and 9. I have also heard Mr. L. T. Sangtam, the learned Additional Advocate General appearing on behalf of the Respondent Nos. 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 and Ms. N. Solo, the learned Standing counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent No.10.

¶2The instant writ petition has been filed by the Petitioners being aggrieved on account of not getting compensation in respect to the lands and/or standing structures/properties pertaining to the Structure No. XL17 of Serial No.175 and Structure No. XL22 of Serial No.188 respectively thereby totaling to an amount of Rs.26,75,289.05/- in respect to construction/widening of the two lane road of NH-129A (Package-3) from Peren to Dimapur by the Page No.# 4/4 Respondents.

¶3Pursuant to the filing of the instant writ petition, the Respondent No.10 had filed an affidavit-in-opposition wherein it has been categorically mentioned that the Petitioners have already received the compensation in respect to what the Petitioners were actually entitled to. It has also been mentioned that the Petitioners are not entitled to any other compensation inasmuch as the other lands and properties belonged to their community lands.

¶4From a further perusal of the materials on record, it transpires that the Respondent Authorities have duly paid the compensation. However, it is a dispute purely between the Petitioners and the Respondent No.10. Under such circumstances, as the said dispute is purely a civil dispute, the instant writ petition cannot be entertained taking into account that various disputed questions of facts would arise and the same cannot be adjudicated by way of the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution.

¶5Accordingly, this Court dismisses the instant writ petition.

¶6Be that as it may, this Court makes it clear that if the Petitioners are aggrieved on account of non-receipt of the compensation, the Petitioner would be at liberty to avail remedies which are otherwise available under law.

Sd/-

JUDGE Comparing Assistant

PageoNo.#o1/4 GAHC020001682023 2222222 222222222222222 2222222222222222THEkGAUHATIkHIGHkCOURT (HIGHkCOURTkOFkASSAM,kNAGALAND,kMIZORAMkANDkARUNACHAL PRADESH) KOHIMAkBENCH CasekNo.k:kWP(C)/72/2023 SHRI.2JANGLALUNG2AND2ANR AGED2ABOUT2492YEARS,2 S/O2LATE2POULANPOU,2 R/O2PEACE2LAND2COLONY,2 MHAINAMTSI2VILLAGE,2 DISTRICT2-2PEREN,2NAGALAND 2:2SHRI.2DIPHULUNG2KAMEI 2AGED2ABOUT2382YEARS S/O2LATE2NGAIDAI R/O2PEACE2LAND2COLONY MHAINAMTSI2VILLAGE DISTRICT2-2PEREN 2NAGALAN VERSUS THE2UNION2OF2INDIA2AND292ORS REPRESENTED2BY2THE2SECRETARY,2 MINISTRY2OF2ROAD2TRANSPORT2AND2HIGHWAYS(MORTH),2GOVERNMENT2 OF2INDIA,2 12-2PARLIAMENT2STREET,2TRANSPORT2BHAWAN,2 NEW2DELHI2-2110001 2:THE2STATE2OF2NAGALAND 2REPRESENTED2BY2THE2CHIEF2SECRETARY GOVERNMENT2OF2NAGALAND KOHIMA 2NAGALAND PageoNo.#o2/4 3:THE2SUPERINTENDENT2OF2POLICE 2PEREN 2NAGALAND 4:THE2OFFICER-IN-CHARGE 2JALUKIE2POLICE2STATION PEREN 2NAGALAND 5:THE2DEPUTY2COMMISSIONER 2PEREN 2NAGALAND 6:THE2ADDITIONAL2DEPUTY2COMMISSIONER 2JALUKIE 2PEREN 2NAGALAND 7:THE2CHIEF2ENGINEER 2PUBLIC2WORKS2DEPARTMENT(NH) KOHIMA 2NAGALAND 8:THE2MANAGING2DIRECTOR 2NHIDCL 2MINISTRY2OF2ROAD2TRANSPORT2AND2HIGHWAYS2(MORTH) 2GOVERNMENT2OF2INDIA 2FLOOR2BUILDING 242-2PARLIAMENT2STREET NEW2DELHI2-2110001 9:THE2EXECUTIVE2DIRECTOR NHIDCL 2R.O.2PWD2REST2HOUSE 2PWD2COLONY KOHIMA 2NAGALAND Page No.# 3/4 10:SHRI. LUNGZIUDING THOU CHAIRMAN OF MHAINAMTSI VILLAGE COUNCIL JALUKIE PEREN NAGALAN For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Pakinrichapbo, Advocate For the Respondent(s) : Mr. L. T. Sangtam, Additional Advocate General : Mr. Sentiyanger, Advocate : Ms. N. Solo, Advocate BEFORE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEVASHIS BARUAH