AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
H.S. Thangkhiew, J
Mr. N.D.Chullai, learned AAG assisted by Ms. Z.E.Nongkynrih, learned GA has drawn the attention of this Court to the affidavit dated 31-03-2022 and more particularly, paragraph 6 wherein it has been stated that the land of the petitioners will not be necessary for the widening process. Paragraph 6 which is relevant is reproduced herein below:
“That in response to paragraphs 3, 4 and 5 of the Writ Petition, the answering deponent states that after receipt of the objection with regard to the widening of the road at Rilbong, a detailed report was sought for from the Executive Engineer, P.W.D. (Roads), Shillong Central Division, Shillong vide Letter No. PW/CE/RD/171/2020/24, dated 08-03-2021.
As per the report which was prepared and submitted vide letter No. TB/SCD/53/2019-20/425, dated 15-04-2021, it is stated that the project was initiated by the Department to ease the traffic congestion at Rhino and Anjalee Petrol Pump junction by providing an alternative short exit route for the residents of Rilbong and Kench’s Trace in particular and Greater Laban Area as a whole connecting Rilbong (near Shillong Times Office) to Rilbong Point (National Highway) by construction of an RCC Bridge over the Umshyrpi river and widening of the existing approach footpath leading to the Bridge.
Furthermore, it has also been stated that the onus with regard to garnering the donation or gifting of land from the residents in order to widen the existing footpath is on the Dorbar Shnong. However, due to communication gap between the Dorbar Shnong and the Department, the intention of easing the traffic congestion which is choking the city to a standstill was not communicated to the residents and may have resulted in the misunderstanding and the subsequent objection to the said widening of the road.
It is humbly submitted that taking cognizance to solve the issue, a joint site inspection was carried out on 27-02-2021 with officials of the department and the residents of the area. During the inspection, due measurement of the existing footpath alongwith the side drains to be covered was carried out and the total available width of the existing footpath was found to range from 3.00 m to 5.20 m. Thereafter, all the members present at the inspection unanimously felt that the aforementioned width of the road on completion will be sufficient for a one-way traffic without taking any extra land from the land owners on either side of the existing footpath”.
In view of the statement made on affidavit by the state respondents, at this stage, nothing survives for consideration by this Court. However, petitioners are at liberty to agitate in case fresh cause of action arises.
Accordingly, writ petition is closed and stands disposed of.