Disposed

Ganga Dhar Das and 3 Ors. v. the Union of India and 7 Ors.

Gauhati HC11 Mar 2025WP(C)/3181/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court disposed of a writ petition seeking adequate compensation for acquired land. Noting that the authorities had already reassessed compensation and agreed to pay the balance within a month, and observing that the petitioners had not challenged the reassessment, the court directed the release of the remaining amount and closed the petition.

What did the court decide?

Direction to NHAI to disburse the balance amount of Rs. 2,28,669/- to the petitioners within one month.

Ganga Dhar Das and 3 Ors. Vs the Union of India and 7 Ors. — Land Acquisition | Gauhati HC (2025)

¶1

Page No.# 1/7

¶2

GAHC010171082016

¶3

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

¶4

Case No. : WP(C)/3181/2016

¶5

GANGA DHAR DAS and 3 ORS S/O- LT. DINA NATH DAS.

¶6

2: NIRANJAN CHANDRA DAS S/O- LT. DINA NATH DAS BOTH R/O VILL.- KALJAR P.O.- BARBALA DIST.- BARPETA ASSAM.

¶7

3: A HRISHIKESH DAS

¶8

4: B HOMESWAR DAS BOTH S/O- LT. KHANINDRA CHANDRA DAS MINORS REP. BY PETITIONER NO. 1 SRI GANGADHAR DAS

¶9

VERSUS

¶10

THE UNION OF INDIA and 7 ORS

¶11

REP. BY THE SECY., MINISTRY OF ROAD TRANSPORT AND HIGHWAYS, NEW DELHI.

¶12

2:THE NATIONAL HIGHWAYS AUTHORITY OF INDIA REP. BY THE SECY. NEW DELHI.

¶13

3:THE STATE OF ASSAM REP. BY THE PRINCIPAL SECY. TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM REVENUE AND DISASTER MANAGEMENT DEPTT. ASSAM DISPUR GHY-6.

¶14

Page No.# 2/7

¶15

4:THE COMMISSIONER LOWER ASSAM DIVISION GHY- 1.

¶16

5:THE DY. COMMISSIONER BARPETA DIST.- BARPETA ASSAM. 6:THE ADDL. DY. COMMISSIONER CUM COMPETENT AUTHORITY NATIONAL HIGHWAYS AUTHORITY OF INDIA BARPETA DIST.- BARPETA ASSAM. 7:THE PROJECT DIRECTOR NATIONAL HIGHWAYS AUTHORITY OF INDIA BONGAIGAON DIST.- BONGAIGAON ASSAM.

¶17

8:THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER PWD BUILDING DIVISION NALBARI DIST.- NALBARI ASSAM

¶18

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. S SHARMA, MR. N N UPADHAYA,MR A SAIKIA

¶19

Advocate for the Respondent : SC, PWD, MR. B GOGOI, SC, PWD,MR. R BORPUJARI,SC,REVENUE DEPARTMENT.,ASSTT.S.G.I. (R1),GA, ASSAM (R3-R5),MR. J HANDIQUE (GA, R3-R6)),MRS. R BORAH (SC, NHAI, R2, R7),SC,REVENUE DEPARTMENT.

¶20

BEFORE

¶21

HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KARDAK ETE

¶22

ORDER

¶23

Date : 12.03 .2025

¶24

Heard Mr. N.N. Upadhayay, learned counsel for the petitioners

¶25

and Ms. R. Baruah, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 1, 2 and

¶26

Page No.# 3/7

¶27

7, Mr. J Handique, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 4, 5 and 6, Ms. N. Bordoloi, learned counsel for the respondent No. 3 and Mr. P. Nayak, learned counsel for the respondent No. 8.

¶28

By filing this writ petition, the petitioners have sought for a direction to the respondent authorities to reassess the adequate compensation in respect of the land measuring 2 (two) Khatas 3 (three) lechas covered by Dag No. 2 (Part), K.P. Patta No. 28 of Village- Itarbhatta, Mouza- Ghilazari, District- Barpeta, Assam and the building in terms of the order dated 07.10.2013, passed by the Commissioner, Lower Assam Division, Guwahati in Arbitration Case No. 56/2011.

¶29

The petitioners were initially awarded a compensation of Rs. 9,79,314/- for the land and building of the petitioners. Being aggrieved, the petitioners approached the authority. Accordingly, in the Arbitration Case No. 56/2011, the arbitrator observed that the land and the building were valued lower side and accordingly direction was issued to determine the value of land and building vide order dated 07.10.2013 including the solatium and other consideration as per the direction of the State Government. Thereafter, the Additional Deputy Commissioner (Land Acquisition) being the competent authority under the National Highway Act, 1956 vide order dated

¶30

Page No.# 4/7

¶31

02.05.2015 requested the Executive Engineer, Nalbari to review the assessment of the building.

¶32

Essentially, this writ petition is filed for adequate compensation in terms of the Arbitration order dated 07.10.2013, passed in Arbitration Case No. 56/2011 by the arbitrator.

¶33

During the pendency of this writ petition, on 28.06.2016, the Executive Engineer, PWD, Nalbari Building Division has reassessed the amount of compensation to be paid to the petitioners and accordingly, an amount of Rs. 10, 36, 000/ was assessed for payment of compensation to the petitioners.

¶34

This Court on 04.11.2024 taking note of such reassessment, granted the respondents to appraise the court as to when the amount so assessed would be paid to the petitioners. Accordingly, the learned Standing Counsel, appearing for NHAI had appraised this court that pursuant to the re-assessment so made, the NHAI is now required to pay an amount of Rs. 2, 28, 669/- which would be paid to the petitioners within a short time. Accordingly, this Court has directed to take appropriate steps to disburse the said amount to the petitioners.

¶35

Page No.# 5/7

¶36

Today, Mr. N.N. Upadhayay, learned counsel for the petitioners, during the course of hearing, made vain attempt to submit that the reassessment so made is only in respect of the building and the entitlement of the petitioners in respect of solatium and other consideration as directed to be re-assessed by the arbitrator has not yet been done. Therefore, he submits that the petitioners are entitled to a compensation of the land including the solatium.

¶37

Ms. R. Boruah, learned Standing Counsel, NHAI, submits that the amount of Rs. 2, 28, 669/- which is due to the petitioners pursuant to the re-assessment as per the order dated 07.10.2013 of the arbitrator shall be released within a period of 1 (one) month from today.

¶38

On consideration of the submissions and the materials as well as the grievance raised in the writ petition, it transpires that the petitioners have essentially sought for the payment of compensation in terms of the order dated 07.10.2013, passed by the Commissioner, Lower Assam Division, Guwahati wherein a direction and observation was made to the extent that while fixing valuation of land, solatium and other consideration as per the direction of the State Government and the valuation of building be assessed as on the date of taking of the possession by providing the specific date of taking over

¶39

Page No.# 6/7

¶40

possession to PWD, are to be taken into consideration.

¶41

The petitioners have brought on record the re-assessment dated 28.06.2016 made by the Executive Engineer, PWD, Nalbari Building Division whereby an amount of Rs. 10,36,000/ is found to be entitled to the petitioners.

¶42

It is stated at the bar that the petitioners have already been paid an amount of Rs, 8,7,300/- out of total re-assessment amount of Rs. 10,36,000/- and now, the remaining amount of Rs. 2,28,669/- is to be paid to the petitioners which the respondent authorities have agreed and accepted to disburse the said amount to the petitioners within a period of 1 (one) month from today.

¶43

Although the petitioners, as noted above has submitted that reassessment is made only in respect of building and no reassessment has been made in respect of land, on consideration of the pleadings, it transpires that no challenge has been made so far as the reassessment dated 28.06.2016 even after bringing the said reassessment on record in the present proceedings by petitioners themselves. Thus, the issue which the learned counsel for the petitioners has sought to be raised cannot be considered in the present case as there is no pleadings and as such the submission

¶44

Page No.# 7/7

¶45

made by the leaned counsel for the petitioners is not accepted.

¶46

Considering that the petitioners have willingly accepted the amount of re-assessment by the respondent authorities pursuant to the order of arbitrator dated 07.10.2013, I am of the view that no further consideration is required to be made so far as re-assessment is concerned, as no challenge has been made, thereby accepted and received re-assessment amount of Rs, 8,7,300/- and ready to receive the balance amount of Rs. 2,28,669/- in terms of the re-assessment made the by authorities pursuant to the order of arbitrator dated 07.10.2013, passed in Arbitration Case No. 56/2011.

¶47

In view of the above, the writ petition stands closed with a direction to the respondents i.e. the NHAI, to disburse the balance amount of Rs. 2,28,669/-to the petitioners within a period of 1(one) month from today.

¶48

Writ petition is disposed of.

¶49

JUDGE

¶50

Comparing Assistant

Ganga Dhar Das and 3 Ors. v. the Union of India and 7 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ganga Dhar Das and 3 Ors. v. the Union of India and 7 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri Sri Athkhelia Namghar and 2 Ors. Vs the State of Assam and 15 Ors.

Sri Sri Athkhelia Namghar and Another Vs the State of Assam and 15 Ors.

Tarun Chandra Gayan and 7 Ors. Vs the State of Assam and 8 Ors.

Gopendra Namasudra and 103 Ors. Vs the Union of India and 12 Ors.

M/S. Bajrang Bali Roller Flour Mills and Anr. Vs the State of Assam and 5 Ors.

M/S Sky Enterprise Vs the State of Assam and 6 Ors.