Meghalaya High Court
Shri Bernard G. Marak vs State Of Meghalaya Through Its on 20 April, 2026
Author: H. S. Thangkhiew
Bench: H. S. Thangkhiew
2026:MLHC:366
Serial No. 37
Regular List
HIGH COURT OF MEGHALAYA
AT SHILLONG
WP(C) No. 100 of 2026
Date of Decision: 20.04.2026
1. Shri Bernard G. Marak
2. Shri Laibision Marak
3. Smt. Laidina Sangma
4. Smt. Nokme G. Momin
5. Smt. Rinna Sangma
6. Shri Standa Sangma
7. Smt. Tejeni Sangma
8. Shri Willonath Momin
9. Shri Winston Momin
10. Shri Wels Momin
11. Smt. Sentilla Sangma
12. Smt. Dabilla Sangma
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
1. State of Meghalaya through its
Chief Secretary, Government of Meghalaya
2. The Deputy Commissioner,
Competent Authority of Land Acquisition cum I/C Revenue,
East Garo Hills, Williamnagar.
3. The General Manager,
National Highways and Infrastructure Development Corporation
Limited (NHICL), Meghalaya
4. Union of India represented by
The Secretary of Ministry of Road Transport and Highways.
.... Respondent(s)
Page 1 of 3
2026:MLHC:366
__________________________________________________________
Coram:
Hon'ble Mr. Justice H. S. Thangkhiew, Judge
Appearance:
For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. P. Ghosh, Adv.
For the Respondent(s) : Mrs. T. Yangi B, AAG with
Ms. R. Colney, GA (For R 1&2)
Dr. N. Mozika, DSTI with
Ms. M. Myrchiang, Adv. (For R 4)
i) Whether approved for reporting in Yes/No
Law journals etc:
ii) Whether approved for publication Yes/No
in press:
JUDGMENT AND ORDER (ORAL)
1. The petitioners’ prayer in the instant writ petition is for
directions to issue to the respondents, the competent authority for land
acquisition for consideration and for disposing of an application under
Section 3H of the National Highways Act, 1956, within a time bound
period, and also to direct to the respondent No. 2, to refer the dispute to
the Principal Civil Court under Section 3(H) 3 of the National Highways
Act, 1956.
2. An affidavit has been filed by the State respondents, wherein
it has been stated that all the applications of the writ petitioners have been
disposed on 13.02.2026. In this context, Mrs. T. Yangi B, learned AAG
Page 2 of 3
2026:MLHC:366
has referred to the said order passed by the competent authority for land
acquisition, wherein it has been clarified that there is no acquisition
presently being undertaken either under NH-62 nor in NH-217, in respect
of the land in question. She submits that there being no cause of action,
the writ petition is therefore incompetent.
3. Mr. P. Ghosh, learned counsel for the petitioners however,
has submitted that the land of the petitioners have been acquired as far
back as in 2009, and as such the application under Section 3(H)(4), was
made for payment of due compensation.
4. However, on the query of this Court, the learned counsel has
not been able to substantiate his claim, inasmuch as, apart from the
statement that the alleged acquisition is said to have happened in 2009, no
other materials such as the notification, or other supporting documents
have been filed.
5. In this view of the matter, this writ petition is closed and
disposed of with liberty to the petitioners to take recourse to other alternate
remedy, as may be admissible in law.
JUDGE
Meghalaya
20.04.2026
“V. Lyndem-PS”
Signature Not Verified Page 3 of 3
Digitally signed by
VALENTINO LYNDEM
Date: 2026.04.20 19:25:42 IST
