Dismissed

Smti Himani Sen and 9 Ors. v. the State of Assam and Ors.

Gauhati HC11 Aug 2022WP(C)/3160/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ of certiorari, petitioners sought compensation for land requisition. The Court, finding a government letter confirming payment for the disputed period, held there was no cause of action and closed the petition.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition closed on the ground that there is no existing cause of action.

What the court decided

Smti Himani Sen and 9 Ors. Vs the State of Assam and Ors. — Land Acquisition | Gauhati HC (2022)

¶1

Page No.# 1/5

¶2

GAHC010121362012

¶3

THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)

¶4

Case No. : WP(C)/3160/2012

¶5

SMTI HIMANI SEN and 9 ORS S/O- UPENDRA NATH SEN.

¶6

2: SAKUNTALA SEN W/O- LT. BIMALENDU SEN

¶7

3: AMITAVA SEN

¶8

S/O- LT. BIMALENDU SEN

¶9

4: ANURADHA DUTTA GUPTA

¶10

W/O- SRI RANAJIT DUTTA GUPTA

¶11

5: DR. SUKLA DUTTA GUPTA W/O- SRI SANJIB DUTTA GUPTA SERIAL NOS. 4 AND 5 ARE D/O- LT. BIMALENDU SEN.

¶12

6: KALYAN KUMAR SEN S/O- LT. SATYENDRA NATH SEN

¶13

7: TAPAS KUMAR SEN S/O- LT. SATYENDRA NATH SEN

¶14

8: SANTANU SEN

¶15

S/O- LT. SATYENDRA NATH SEN

¶16

9: ARINDAM SEN S/O- LT. SATYENDRA NATH SEN

¶17

10: DR. ARUNDHATI DAS GUPTA

¶18

W/O- SRI JAYANTA DAS GUPTA AND D/O- LT. SATYENDRA NATH SEN ALL ARE R/O- S.C. GOSWAMI ROAD

¶19

PANBAZAR SUKLESWAR GHAT P.O.- GUWHATI

Page No.# 2/5

AND PIN CODE- 781001

VERSUS

THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ORS REP. BY THE CHIEF SECY., GOVT. OF ASSAM, DISPUR, SACHIBALAYA, GHY- 6, ASSAM.

¶24

2:THE COMMISSIONER AND SECY. DEPTT. OF REVENUE GOVT. OF ASSAM DISPUR SACHIBALAYA GHY- 6 ASSAM. 3:THE DY. SECY. II DEPTT. OF REVENUE GOVT. OF ASSAM DISPUR SACHIVALAYA GHY- 6 ASSAM. 4:THE JOINT SECY. DEPTT. OF GENERAL ADMINISTRATION GOVT. OF ASSAM DISPUR SACHIVALAYA GHY- 6 ASSAM. 5:THE DIST. COLLECTOR KAMRUP M GOVT. OF ASSAM GHY- 1 ASSAM. 6:THE DY. COLLECTOR KAMRUP M GOVT. OF ASSAM GHY- 1 ASSAM. 7:THE LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER LAND ACQISITION BRANCH OFFICE OF THE DY. COMMISSIONER KAMRUP M GOVT. OF ASSAM GHY- 1 ASSAM.

¶25

Page No.# 3/5

¶26

8:THE SETTLEMENT OFFICER GUWAHATI RE-SETTLEMENT OPERATION LACHITNAGAR GHY- 7 ASSAM

¶27

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR.S SARMA

¶28

Advocate for the Respondent : MR.S SHARMAR-5

¶29

BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR MEDHI

¶30

ORDER

¶31

11.08.2022

¶32

Heard Shri BC Das, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Shri S. Sarma, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent no. 5 - Collector as well as Shri DK Sarma, learned Additional Senior Government Advocate, Assam for the State respondents.

¶33

By this writ petition, which was instituted in the year of 2012, a prayer has been made for release of compensation both for acquisition and requisition of a certain portion of land at Maidamgaon, Guwahati. It is the case of the petitioners that on 25.10.1976, 44 bighas of land (approx.) was initiated for acquisition out of which subsequently, 3 bighas were acquired. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners, Shri Das submits that though at the time of structuring of the writ petition the details were not properly placed before this Court, he has instructions to submit that so far as the acquisition compensation is concerned, the same has been paid. It is further the submission made that for the period of 26.10.1976 to 25.10.1986, the requisition compensation has also been paid and it is only for the subsequent period till the date of de-requisition i.e 20.12.1999 that no amount has been paid. In other words, the payment for compensation for requisition is for the period from 26.10.1986 to 20.12.1999. The learned Senior Counsel has also drawn the attention of this Court to

¶34

Page No.# 4/5

¶35

the notice made under Section 80 of the CPC and also the chart annexed thereto. The attention of this Court has also been drawn to the minutes of meeting with the Chief Secretary. As per the learned Senior Counsel, the requisition compensation is amounting to Rs.86,56,123/-.

¶36

Shri S. Sarma, learned Senior Counsel for the Collector however submits that the writ petition was itself instituted by misrepresentation of facts and suppression of materials. It is submitted that though the cause title would suggest that the compensation for acquisition, no such issue is pending. He has further drawn the attention of this Court to the lack of bona fide on the part of the petitioners by demonstrating that the notice under Section 80 of the CPC was in the year 2009 whereafter no suit was instituted and it is only on 25.06.2012 that the present writ petition has been filed.

¶37

On merits, the learned Senior Counsel for the Collector emphatically submits that no requisition amount is pending and everything has been paid. The attention of this Court has been drawn to the affidavits filed on 22.09.2015 and 10.11.2017 (filing date 13.10.2015) by the respondent no. 5, who was the Collector. A Communication dated 16.11.2017 has also been placed before this Court as per which, a total amount of Rs.1,84,39,211/- has been paid as requisition compensation for the entire period. A copy of this letter has also been furnished to Shri Das, the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners. The learned Senior Counsel for the Collector accordingly submits that there is no existing cause of action to be adjudicated and in any case, the present writ petition involves questions of facts which are disputed and may not be gone into by a Writ Court.

¶38

Shri DK Sarma, learned Additional Senior Government Advocate, Assam while endorsing the submission of Shri S. Sarma, learned Senior Counsel for the Collector submits that official documents would reveal that no payment is pending on account of acquisition as well as requisition of the land in question and therefore the writ

¶39

Page No.# 5/5

¶40

petition is liable to be closed.

¶41

After hearing the parties and on perusal of the materials on records including the contents of the letter dated 16.11.2017 issued by the Deputy Commissioner to the Revenue Department giving the period wise payment in the form of a chart, there is no reason to disbelieve the said facts of payment. The said letter also contains an endorsement that the payment has been done for the period from 26.10.1986 to 20.12.1999 i.e. the period in question which is of Rs.1,42,42,618/- as per an order dated 19.12.2013 passed by this Court in present writ proceedings.

¶42

In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances and also being apprised of the fact of payment for the period in question, this Court is of the considered opinion that there is no existing cause of action to be adjudicated in this writ petition.

¶43

Even otherwise, in this writ petition, the questions of facts which are disputed have been raised which a Writ Court would be loath to enter into. In view of the above, the instant writ petition stands closed.

¶44

A copy of the letter dated 16.11.2017 along with annexures are made part of the records.

¶45

JUDGE

¶46

Comparing Assistant

Smti Himani Sen and 9 Ors. v. the State of Assam and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Smti Himani Sen and 9 Ors. v. the State of Assam and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dr Rajdeep Das Vs Amit Khare and 2 Ors.

M/S. Dangarkuchi Paka Betbari Meen Samabai Samittee Ltd. Vs Tilak Kr. Kalita

Ranjit Das Vs the State of Assam and 5 Ors.

M/S Rsm Infra Projects Vs the State of Assam and 2 Ors.

Smt. Chonghoi Haokip Vs Union of India

The South Salmara Mankachar Zilla Parishad Vs Sokina Khatun and 8 Ors.