Meghalaya High Court
Date Of Decision: 16.06.2025 vs The State Of Meghalaya Represented By on 16 June, 2025
Author: H. S. Thangkhiew
Bench: H. S. Thangkhiew
2025:MLHC:510
Serial No. 01
Regular List
HIGH COURT OF MEGHALAYA
AT SHILLONG
WP(C) No. 204 of 2025
Date of Decision: 16.06.2025
Shri Abdul Hussain SK ... Petitioner(s)
Versus
1. The State of Meghalaya represented by
The Chief Secretary to the Govt. of Meghalaya
2. Secretary,
Ministry of Road Transport and Highways
Govt. of India
3. The Deputy Commissioner (Revenue)
West Garo Hills District, Tura .... Respondent(s)
Coram:
Hon’ble Mr. Justice H. S. Thangkhiew, Judge
Appearance:
For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. S. Deb, Adv.
For the Respondent(s) : Mr. S. Sen, GA (For R 1&3)
Ms. M. Myrchiang, Adv.
vice Dr. N. Mozika, DSGI (For R 2)
i) Whether approved for reporting in Yes/No
Law journals etc:
ii) Whether approved for publication Yes/No
in press:
Page 1 of 3
2025:MLHC:510
(ORAL)
1. Heard Mr. S. Deb, learned counsel for the petitioner.
2. Issue notice.
3. Mr. S. Sen, learned GA is present and accepts notice on
behalf of the respondents Nos. 1 & 3. Ms. M. Myrchiang, learned
counsel vice Dr. N. Mozika, learned DSGI is present on behalf of the
respondent No. 2, so no further notice is called for.
4. The grievance of the writ petitioner is with regard to the
acquisition of land for extension of NH 127 B (Phulbari to Georagre
Section), whereby the petitioner’s land has been notified to be acquired
but however, when the notification has been issued, the area shown as
per the petitioner is incorrect.
5. Mr. S. Deb, learned counsel for the petitioner has
submitted that an objection/representation has been filed before the
Deputy Commissioner, (Revenue) West Garo Hills Tura, which is still
pending consideration. He submits that his only prayer at this stage, is
for the Deputy Commissioner to dispose of the representation.
6. Mr. S. Sen, learned GA for the respondents Nos. 1 & 3, has
submitted that the writ petition is vague, and even the impugned
notification has not been enclosed. As such, he submits it is difficult for
him to even seek instructions from the Deputy Commissioner.
Page 2 of 3
2025:MLHC:510
7. Having considered the matter and also perused the
representation, it appears that the petitioner is only seeking some clarity
with regard to the notification that has been issued by the Ministry of
Road Transport and Highways.
8. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed with a direction
that the Deputy Commissioner examine the representation filed by the
petitioner, which is annexed at Annexure-7 to the writ petition, as to
whether the writ petitioner is entitled to any relief at all.
9. With the above directions, the matter stands closed and is
accordingly disposed of.
JUDGE
Meghalaya
16.06.2025
“V. Lyndem-PS”
Signature Not Verified Page 3 of 3
Digitally signed by
VALENTINO LYNDEM
Date: 2025.06.16 06:05:28 IST