Court declined writ interference pending completion of the ordered joint inquiry into compensation eligibility.

The petitioner claimed compensation for an RCC building and a wine shop allegedly operated by him from 2010 to 2019. He approached the Meghalaya High Court alleging that the acquired structures had not been assessed for compensation and that, despite an order dated 7 July 2026 directing a joint inquiry by the Additional Deputy Commissioner (Revenue), no action had been taken.

The State respondents opposed the petition, contending that the wine shop had not been operational since 2019 and that NHIDCL, by letter dated 20 April 2026, had stated that the petitioner was neither listed as a beneficiary nor included in the lists prepared under Sections 11 and 19. They further submitted that a joint survey had been conducted and the compensation for the acquired land and buildings had been deposited before the competent authority.

The Court noted that, notwithstanding NHIDCL’s position, a subsequent letter dated 7 July 2026 contemplated a joint inquiry into the petitioner’s claim.

Whether the petitioner was entitled to consideration and payment of compensation for the RCC building and wine shop allegedly affected by the acquisition.

Whether the writ petition should be entertained or any direction issued while the joint inquiry directed on 7 July 2026 remained pending.

The Court referred to the statutory acquisition lists prepared under Sections 11 and 19, as relied upon by NHIDCL, and to the administrative process of joint survey, assessment, deposit, and payment of compensation for acquired land and buildings.

The Court applied the procedural principle that judicial intervention was not warranted at that stage where the petitioner’s claim was disputed, the acquiring authority asserted that compensation had already been deposited, and a joint inquiry concerning the claim was pending.

The Court recognised that NHIDCL had categorically stated that the petitioner was not included in the list of beneficiaries and that compensation had already been deposited and paid in respect of the acquired land and buildings.

However, the Court also took note of the subsequent direction for a joint inquiry dated 7 July 2026, which indicated that the petitioner’s claim had not been conclusively resolved at the administrative level. Since the factual entitlement to compensation required examination through that inquiry, and the matter was limited in scope, the Court declined to adjudicate the claim or issue substantive directions at the motion stage.

The writ petition was accordingly closed and disposed of at the motion stage.