Alimuddin and Anr. Vs the State of Assam and 5 Ors.

P.O- BARPETA DIST- BARPETA ASSAM 5:THE SECRETARY 13 NO. PACHIM SARUKHETRI GAON PANCHAYAT P.S- SARTHEBARI DIST- BARPETA ASSAM 6:THE PRESIDENT 13 NO. PACHIM SARUKHETRI GAON PANCHAYAT P.S- SARTHEBARI DIST- BARPETA ASSA

¶17

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR.D BANIA, MR.S C BISWAS,MR.F A HASSAN,MR. E AHMED

¶18

Advocate for the Respondent : MR.A MANNAFR- 5and6, ,GA, ASSAM,MRS.F BEGUM(R5&6),MR. M NATH (SC, PANCHAYAT & RURAL DEVELOPMENT DEPT.)

¶19

BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KARDAK ETE

¶20

O R D E R

¶21

Date : 10.03.2025.

¶22

Heard Mr. S.C. Biswas, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. S. Dutta, learned standing counsel for the P & RD Department, representing the respondent Nos.1, 2 & 4, Ms. S. Baruah, learned State Counsel appearing for respondent No.3 and Mr. A. Mannaf, learned counsel for the respondent Nos.5 & 6.

¶23

By filing this writ petition, the petitioners have prayed for a direction to the respondent authorities to pay adequate compensation for 3 (three) Bighas of

¶24

Page No.# 3/6

¶25

land, out of total 10 (ten) Bigha 15 (fifteen) Lecha, covered by Dag No. 144, Patta No. 4 of Village Aagdia Pathar, Mouza Sarukhetri in the District of Barpeta and also for compensation for damage to the crops standing thereon, on account of construction of Gaon Panchayat Road.

¶26

The case of the petitioners is that they are the owners of plot of land measuring 10 Bigha, 15 lechas covered by Dag No. 144, Patta No. 4 of Village Aagdia Pathar, Mouza Sarukhetri in the District of Barpeta, which they have purchased and mutated in their names vide Order dated 26.4.2007. The petitioners claimed that they are paying the land revenue regularly. It is the contention of the petitioners that the respondents have constructed a Panchayat Road in the area, particularly, under 13 No. Pachim Saruketri Gaon Panchayat. Pursuant to the Work order issued by the Respondent No. 4, the Gaon Panchayat authority along with the contractor have forcefully occupied 3 (three) Bighas of the land of the petitioners’, by damaging the standing crops over the land. The land has been taken in possession forcibly without due process of law, depriving the right of the petitioners.

¶27

It is contended that the petitioners have filed an FIR on 20.04.2015, which has been registered as Barpeta P.S. Case No. 1350/2015, under Section 120(B)/341/294/506 of Indian Panel Code. The petitioners also approached the Director General of Police, Assam and the Deputy Commissioner, Barpeta against such illegal action by the Panchayat Authorities as well as the contractor. Despite several approaches, the respondent authorities have failed to initiate any action against such illegal and forceful possession and construction of Panchayat Road on the said area, without due process of law. Hence, this writ petition is filed by the petitioners for necessary direction.

¶28

Page No.# 4/6

¶29

Mr. S.C. Biswas, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that although 3 (three) Bighas of the petitioners’ land appears to have been forcefully taken for construction of the Panchayat Road, as admitted by the respondent authorities, it appears that the authorities had taken only one Bigha land of the petitioners’, out of 10 (ten) Bighas. He submits that in view of the categorical admission that the Panchayat road has been constructed over the land of the petitioners covering one Bigha and admittedly that there was no acquisition in terms of the law, the petitioners are entitled to be compensated adequately, as the land on which the Panchayat Authorities and the contractor have constructed the Panchayat Road is a patta land. Therefore, he submits that the respondent authorities may be directed to acquire the land, if at all it is required for public purpose and assess the same and pay adequate compensation as per the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013.

¶30

Mr. S. Dutta, learned standing counsel for the P & RD Department, representing the respondent Nos.1, 2 & 4 submits that the role of the Department is only to grant financial sanction after the schemes are approved by the Gram Sabha for any developmental works. He submits that the Department has no role on the issue of acquisition and consequential payment of compensation for the land.

¶31

Ms. S. Baruah, learned State Counsel appearing for respondent No.3 submits that as per the field verification, it is found that a village Panchayat Road seems to have been constructed on Dag No. 144, Patta No. 4 of Village Aagdia Pathar revenue village Mouza Sarukhetri. On physical verification, it is found that along with the Western side of the existing road (in Dag No.144),

¶32

Page No.# 5/6

¶33

excavation of land with average approximate width of 15 feet has been done in order to raise the height of the existing road. She further submits that in so for the question whether any part of the land belonging to the petitioners have been brought within the ambit of the road so constructed, it is admitted that the land on which the Panchayat Road has been constructed belongs to the petitioners and one Ab Khalek, thereby admitting that the land over which the Panchayat Road has been constructed, belongs to the petitioners.

¶34

I have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record.

¶35

It is noticed that the respondent authorities, particularly, the respondent No.3 has made a categorical submission that on verification, it is found that a Panchayat Road has been constructed over the land of Dag No. 144, Patta No. 4 of Village Aagdia Pathar revenue village which belong to the petitioners. Thus it is admitted position that the road has been constructed over the land of the petitioners over one Bigha of land.

¶36

10. A report of the Circle Officer, Sarthebari Revenue Circle, addressed to the Addl. Deputy Commissioner, Barpeta District fortifies the stand of the respondent No.3, which shows that the land belong to the petitioners, has been brought within the ambit of the road so constructed which includes the land of one Ab Khalek. It is also not disputed that the land in question is a patta land belong to the petitioners and of one Ab Khalek.

¶37

11. Having considered the submissions and the materials on record, it is seen that the State Authorities have constructed the Panchayat Road over the land of

¶38

Page No.# 6/6

¶39

the petitioners including one Ab Khalek, without acquisition of the land, as the land is a patta land belonging to the petitioners. Thus, I am of the view that the authorities would not be permitted to take possession of the land of the petitioner, without due process of law. Consequently, it would be appropriate to direct the State Authorities to acquire the land, if the land is required for public purpose, which may include construction of the Panchayat Road.

¶40

Accordingly, it is directed that the respondent authorities to acquire the land of the petitioners, if required for public purpose including construction of road. On such acquisition, the petitioners be paid adequate compensation strictly in accordance with the relevant provisions of Land Acquisition law.

¶41

However, it is made clear that if the land, as per the law, is not deserved to be acquired, appropriate orders may be passed in that regard.

¶42

In the result, the writ petition stands disposed of in terms of the above observation and directions.

¶43

JUDGE

¶44

Comparing Assistant

Alimuddin and Anr. v. the State of Assam and 5 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Alimuddin and Anr. v. the State of Assam and 5 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Madhab Deka Vs the State of Assam and 4 Ors.

Krishna Kanta Biswas Vs the State of Assam and 4 Ors.

Krishna Kanta Biswas Vs the State of Assam and 5 Ors.

Satyam Sewa Sommittee Vs the State of Assam and 4 Ors.

Sajeda Khatun Vs the State of Assam and 3 Ors.

Ajiron Bibi Vs the State of Assam