Matrika Prasad Sharma and Ors v. Union of India and Ors

J U D G M E N T

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,

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

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.

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.

¶10The 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/

THE HIGH COURT OF SIKKIM : GANGTOK (Civil Extra Ordinary Jurisdiction) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- SINGLE BENCH: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BHASKAR RAJ PRADHAN, JUDGE ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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 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