Meghalaya HC settles long-running land compensation dispute, orders release of withheld funds

The High Court of Meghalaya delivered its final verdict on July 23, 2025, in a protracted land acquisition case that has been under judicial scrutiny since 2016, directing the state to release compensation funds that have been held back for years.

Chief Justice IP Mukerji and Justice W Diengdoh disposed of the public interest litigation that originated from concerns over allegedly excessive compensation payments in a land acquisition case. The dispute centred around whether the state had "squandered public money" by offering compensation rates significantly higher than the original purchase price.

The case traces back to a 2017 Supreme Court order that raised red flags about compensation of ₹115 per square foot being paid for acquired land. The apex court had expressed concern about the substantial difference between this rate and what the landowner had originally paid, leading to an injunction preventing the distribution of funds to Patricia Nongsiej and Stied Dkhar.

Following the Supreme Court's directive, a Special Judicial Officer was appointed to investigate the matter. In her judgment delivered on June 20, 2025, the officer concluded that the compensation amount was justified and "had been calculated according to Section 26 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013."

The High Court noted that the original landowner, represented by Senior Advocate K. Paul, had already received 80 percent of the total compensation and was seeking the remaining 20 percent. Other parties in the dispute contested this claim, arguing they had legitimate stakes in the property.

Chief Justice Mukerji clarified that since the reference was made in a public interest litigation rather than under specific provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, the Special Judicial Officer's decision should be treated as "a final judgment/decree made by the learned Special Judicial Officer in the exercise of her original jurisdiction."

The court has now directed that 20 per cent of compensation withheld by the state will continue to be held for eight weeks, after which it will be released to the transferor unless there are contrary orders. The judges specified that "any party aggrieved by the judgment/decree or any part of it shall be at liberty to take steps in accordance with law."