Page No.# 1/6 GAHC040003862020 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) (ITANAGAR BENCH) Case No. : WP(C)/131/2020 TASING TAMA S/O LT. TARUK TASING, R/O NEW MARKET BOLENG, PS BOLENG, DIST. SIANG, AP. VERSUS 1:THE UNION OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF ROAD TRANSPORT AND HIGHWAY TRANSPORT, NEW DELHI 2:THE DIRECTOR GENERAL BORDER RAODS SEEMA SADAK BHAWAN RING ROAD NARAINA DELHI CANTT NEW DELHI. 3:THE STATE OF AP REPRESENTED BY THE SCRETARY LAND MANAGEMENT TO THE GOVT. OF AP ITANAGAR. 4:THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER SIANG DISTRICT BOLENG AP. 5:OFFICE OF THE ADDITIONAL DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BOLENG SIANG DIST. AP. 6:OFFICER-IN-CHARGE CHIEF ENGINEER (ZONE-V ) MINISTRY OF ROAD TRANSPORT AND HIGHWAYS ROOM NO. 223 Page No.# 2/6 SECOND FLOOR TRANSPORT BHAWAN 1 PARLIAMENT STREET NEW DELHI. 7:THE CHIEF ENGINEER BORDER ROADS ORGANISATION BRTR HQ-44 BRTF(GREF) AALO ALONG DIST. WEST SIANG AP. 8:THE CHIEF ENGINEER (HIGHWAYS-EAST) PWD ITANAGAR AP. 9:THE OFFICER COMMANDING 44 (BRTF) GREF BOLENG SIANG DIST. AP. 10:THE FOREST RANGE OFFICE BOLENG SIANG DIST. AP. 11:THE HORTICULTURE DEVELOPMENT OFFICER BOLENG SIANG DIST. AP Advocate for the Petitioner : J Sarma, B Chakraborty,A Talukdar,G Taloh Advocate for the Respondent : GA (AP), CGC,Marto Kato,Ninnong Ratan,DSGI BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KALYAN RAI SURANA ORDER Date : 21.01.2025 Heard Ms. A. Talukdar, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. N. Sorah, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Mr. M. Kato, learned DSGI, representing respondents No.1, 2, 6, 7 and 9; Mr. D. Page No.# 3/6 Kamduk, learned Standing Counsel for the Land Management Department appearing for the respondent No.3; and Ms. T. Wangmu, learned Govt. Advocate for the State respondents No.4, 5, 10 and 11. 2. By filing this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner is seeking a direction upon the General Reserve Engineer Force (‘GREF’ for short) for paying compensation to the petitioner on account of dumping mud and stones on the petitioner’s land, which has caused damage to his garden, medicinal trees and other vegetation standing on the said land. 3. In brief, the case of the petitioner, as projected in the writ petition is that he is the owner and possessor of a plot of land measuring about 2,30,000 (Two lakh thirty thousand) Sq.Mtrs. from Boleng to Sangam (6 KM) at Village Latyeng area of Boleng. The petitioner claims that with extreme hard labour, he had developed the land into garden by obtaining loan. However, the GREF authorities, without consent of the petitioner or any intimation, damaged the garden of the petitioner by dumping stones and mud in the name of road construction, which has caused extensive loss to the petitioner. It is also projected that adversely affected by the dumping of mud and stones, etc. on his land, the petitioner had submitted a prayer dated 15.11.2018 before the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Boleng, Siang District to intervene in the matter. However, as no action was taken, the petitioner had submitted another representation dated 06.12.2018 before the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Boleng, Siang District, who had issued the notice under Memo. dated 11.01.2019 to attend the meeting. However, as no fruitful result had emerged, the petitioner had submitted another application dated 11.06.2019 before the Deputy Commissioner, Siang District, Boleng for assessment and payment of proper compensation against the land, including damages caused to the orange Page No.# 4/6 garden, citrus garden and other valuable tress. As the said representation did not yield any result, the present writ petition has been filed. 4. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the learned DSGI has submitted that the GREF authorities had dumped soil on the land of the petitioner pursuant to the petitioner’s consent application submitted before the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Siang District, Boleng, which is also supported by the affidavit filed by the respondents No.4 and 5. 5. Considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Govt. Advocate as well as the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the learned DSGI. Also perused the writ petition, separate affidavit-in- opposition filed on behalf of the respondents No.1, 2, 6, 7 and 9, by the respondents No.4 and 5, as well as by the respondent No.10, and affidavit-in- reply filed by the petitioner against the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the respondents No.1, 2, 6, 7 and 9. 6. The case of the respondents is that the petitioner namely, Shri Tama Tasing, has submitted an application allowing dumping on the said area on ongoing road construction of GREF department. After filing of the affidavit-in- opposition by the respondents, the petitioner has filed an affidavit-in-reply, whereby the petitioner has admitted about the request made for dumping on his land. However, it is sought to be projected that the dumping was permitted in a pond area measuring about 20x50 Sq. ft., but the entire land of the petitioner measuring 2,30,000 (Two lakh thirty thousand) Sq.Mtrs. was damaged. Therefore, it is apparent that while presenting the writ petition, the petitioner has suppressed the material fact that the petitioner has submitted a representation before the Additional Deputy Commissioner permitting dumping on his land. Page No.# 5/6 7. It is also found strange that while the GREF authorities stated to have been doing dumping on the land of the petitioner, the petitioner did not raise any complaint. However, the representation for compensation is submitted before the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Siang District, Boleng. 8. Be that as it may, apparently from the application of the petitioner which is annexed as Annexure-1 to the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the Union of India and GREF, being the respondents No.1, 2, 6, 7 and 9, it is crystal clear that the petitioner did not earmark any particular plot of land for dumping. Moreover, the period of time when the dumping was actually carried out is not also stated or specifically stated in the writ petition. However, from the documents appended to the writ petition, it appears that the complaint about damage was raised by the petitioner on 15.11.2018 in the complaint before the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Siang District, Boleng. 9. In a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the Court has no mechanism to make an assessment of the loss caused to the petitioner in respect of his land when the dumping was carried out by the GREF at the consent given by the petitioner. The issue of quantifying the compensation is to be best left for a Civil Court as the Court may have to decide the issue of damages and quantum of compensation, if any, based on evidence tendered by the parties. 10. In this writ petition, the petitioner has not approached this Court with clean hands by disclosing all material facts and the petitioner has suppressed giving consent for dumping on his land and the said suppression of facts has come to light only from 2 (two) separate affidavit-in-oppositions filed by the respondents No.1, 2, 6, 7 and 9 as well as affidavit-in-opposition filed by the respondents No.4 and 5. Therefore, this Court is of the considered opinion that Page No.# 6/6 the petitioner has become disentitled to discretionary relief under Article 226 of the Constitution of India on the sole ground of suppression of material fact. Subsequent disclosure or admission of such consent given cannot cure the defect of suppression of material facts. In the affidavit-in-reply, the petitioner has projected that the consent has given to fill up a pond of 20 x 50 Sq.ft., which is also not borne out of the records. Accordingly, the Court does not find any merit in this writ petition seeking damages and compensation on the face of the fact that the dumping was carried out at the consent given by the petitioner. Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed. 11. The dismissal of the writ petition shall not come in the way of the petitioner to avail such other remedies as may be so advised, subject however, to the law of limitation. JUDGE Comparing Assistant