Page No.# 1/5 GAHC020008092022 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) KOHIMA BENCH Case No. : WP(C)/335/2022 SMTI. KHAMLA PHOM WIFE OF H. PONGWANG, R/O TAMLU TOWN, LONGLENG NAGALAND VERSUS THE STATE OF NAGALAND AND 6 ORS REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF NAGALAND 2:THE UNION OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY MINISTRY OF ROAD TRANSPORT AND HIGHWAYS GOVT. OF INDIA 1-PARLIAMENT STREET TRANSPORT BHAVAN NEW DELHI-110001 3:THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF WORKS AND HOUSING GOVT. OF NAGALAND. KOHIMA NAGALAND 4:THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER LONGLENG NAGALAND 5:THECHIEF ENGINEER PWD-NH NAGALAND KOHIMA 6:THE DIRECTOR KEYSTONE INFRA PRIVATE LTD H.NO. 8-2-338/6 ROAD NO.3 PANCHAVATI COLONY BANJARA HILLS HYDERABAD TELANGANA-500034 Page No.# 2/5 7:THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR NHIDCL R.O PWD REST HOUSE PWD COLONY KOHIMA NAGALAN For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. C. Konyak, Advocate For the Respondent(s) : Mr. Yangerwati, CGC Mr. E. Thiba Phom, Govt. Advocate Mr. Moa Jamir, Advocate Mr. A. Sophie, Advocate BEFORE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEVASHIS BARUAH ORDER Date : 17.03.2026 Heard Mr. C. Konyak, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner. Mr. E. Thiba Phom, the learned Government Advocate appears on behalf of the respondent Nos. 1, 3, 4 and 5, Mr. Yangerwati, the learned CGC appears on behalf of the respondent No. 2, Mr. A. Sophie, the learned counsel appears on behalf of the respondent No. 6 and Mr. Moa Jamir, the learned counsel appears on behalf of the respondent No. 7. 2. The petitioner herein is aggrieved by the inadequacy of the compensation paid on account of Page No.# 3/5 the damage caused to the petitioner’s properties due to the construction of the two-lane road on the Changtongya–Longleng Road, Mon–Tamlu– Merangkong Road. The petitioner was paid an amount of Rs. 1,57,380.72p., whereas, as per the petitioner, the compensation ought not to be less than Rs. 62,35,190/. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the said amount which the petitioner claims is based on the report and estimates prepared by the W&W Construction based on the existing Nagaland PWD Schedule of Rates, 2021. 3. It is the opinion of this Court that the grievance of the petitioner as regards the inadequacy of the compensation awarded to the petitioner for the damage caused to the petitioner’s properties on account of the construction of the road, cannot be adjudicated in writ proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, inasmuch as it would involve tendering of evidence and intrinsic adjudication of factual disputes. 4. Under such circumstances, it is the opinion of this Court that this Court would not be the appropriate forum for adjudication of the present dispute under Page No.# 4/5 Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 5. Be that as it may, this Court observes that the petitioner has been diligently and bona fidely pursuing the present writ proceedings under an impression that this Court would be in a position to adjudicate the present lis, and as such if this Court is not entertaining the present proceedings, it is the opinion of this Court that the period from the date of filing of the present writ petition till date should be excluded while computing the period of limitation in filing a suit. 6. Accordingly, the instant writ petition stands disposed of with the following observations and directions: (i) This Court, in view of the reasons stated hereinabove, is not inclined to entertain the instant writ petition, as it involves pure factual adjudication. (ii) The petitioner is granted the liberty to approach the competent Civil Court claiming damages for the loss suffered by the petitioner on account of the damage to the petitioner’s properties due to the construction of the road in question. Page No.# 5/5 (iii) The period from 15.12.2022 till date be excluded while computing the period of limitation. Sd/- JUDGE Comparing Assistant