Anamul Hoque Laskar Vs the State of Assam and 3 Ors. — Land Acquisition | Gauhati HC (2025)

Anamul Hoque Laskar Vs the State of Assam and 3 Ors. — Land Acquisition | Gauhati HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Writ petition closed with a direction to the Collector/Land Acquisition Collector to take the legal course prescribed under law and under Section 11 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 in connection with LA Case No. 07/2001-02, to be completed within four weeks of receipt of a certified copy of the order furnished by the petitioner; no compensation awarded in the writ forum.

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner is entitled to land acquisition compensation for the land acquired under L.A. Case No. 7/2001-2002, and how that compensation is to be apportioned, given the claim and counter claim between the parties. +1 more

Ratio / Principle

Given the claim and counter claim between the parties as regards entitlement and apportionment of the compensation, such dispute cannot be determined by this Court in exercise of power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

Key takeaways

The writ petition stands closed, with a direction to the Collector to take the legal course prescribed under law and under Section 11 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, as the acquisition process is stated to have been initiated under that Act.ratio¶25
The directed exercise is to be carried out within four weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the order, to be furnished by the petitioner before the Land Acquisition Collector in connection with LA Case No. 07/2001-02.ratio¶25

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Gauhati High Court (Arun Dev Choudhury, J.), WP(C)/3890/2023, order dated 02-04-2025: petitioner Anamul Hoque Laskar claimed land-acquisition compensation for land acquired under L.A. Case No. 7/2001-2002 in Village Neirgram Part-II (claimed as 29 Bighas 15 Kathas 8 Chataks), having applied on 26.11.2002 to the Land Acquisition Officer, Cachar as legal heir of late Samjid Ali. The Collector's affidavit-in-opposition stated that the acquired land (1 Bigha 17 Kathas 04 Lechas) related to Dag No. 554/ka under LA Case No. 07/2001-02 (actual Dag No. 554 area: 3 Bighas 0 Katha 8 Chataks), recorded in the name of Samjid Ali along with others; a joint survey of 14.05.1997 found the petitioner not in possession, and the Zirat list recorded Rahim Uddin Laskar (son of Late Said Ali Laskar) and four others as possession holders; the State confirmed (communication dated 10.02.2025) that no payment had been made. Finding a claim-and-counterclaim over entitlement and apportionment of compensation, the Court held the dispute could not be determined in exercise of power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, closed the writ petition, and directed the Collector to take the legal course prescribed under law and under Section 11 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, to be completed within four weeks of the petitioner furnishing a certified copy in connection with LA Case No. 07/2001-02. No precedents were cited.

Page No.# 1/3

GAHC010146222023

2025:GAU-AS:3933

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

Case No. : WP(C)/3890/2023

ANAMUL HOQUE LASKAR

S/O- LATE TAIMUS ALI LASKAR, R/O- VILL- NEIRGRAM PART-II, P.O. SONAPUR, P.S. SILCHAR, DIST.- CACHAR, ASSAM

VERSUS

THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 3 ORS TO BE REP. BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM, REVENUE AND DISASTER MANAGEMENT DEPTT., DISPUR, GHY-06

2:THE DEPUTY SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM REVENUE (L.R) AND DISASTER MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT DISPUR GUWAHATI-06 3:THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER CUM LAND ACQUISATION OFFICER DIST.- CACHAR SILCHAR ASSAM 4:THE ADDL. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (LAND ACQUISITION BRANCH) OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER DIST.- CACHAR SILCHAR ASSA

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. M H LASKAR, MR. S ROY,M. HOSSAIN

Advocate for the Respondent : SC, REVENUE, GA, ASSAM

Page No.# 2/3

BEFORE

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN DEV CHOUDHURY

ORDER

02-04-2025

1. Heard Mr. S. Roy, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. A. Bhattacharjee, learned Standing counsel, Revenue and Disaster Management Department for the respondent Nos. 1 & 2. Also heard Ms. S. Konwar, learned State counsel for the respondent Nos. 3 & 4.

2. The claim made in this writ petition is that land measuring more or less, 29 Bighas 15 Kathas 8 Chataks in Village-Neirgram Part-II, was acquired under L.A. Case No. 7/2001-2002. According to the petitioner, such land belongs to the grandfather of the petitioner and his siblings. The petitioner received acquisition notice as legal heir of late Samjid Ali i.e., grandfather of the petitioner. On receipt of such notice, the petitioner submitted an application on 26.11.2002 before the Land Acquisition Officer, Cachar, Silchar claiming the land acquisition compensation on behalf of said Samjid Ali. However, such compensation has not yet been granted to the petitioner.

3. The concerned Collector through the Additional District Commissioner, Cachar has filed an affidavit-in-opposition in this regard. At Para 7 of the said affidavit-in-opposition, a specific stand is taken that actual area of Dag No. 554 is 3 Bighas 0 Katha 8 Chataks and acquired land measuring 1 Bigha 17 Kathas 04 Lechas is of Dag No. 554/ka relates to LA Case No. 07/2001-02 and the land was recorded in the name of Samjid Ali along with some others.

4. It is also their stand that at the time of joint survey carried out on 14.05.1997, in presence of requiring Department (i.e., Officer Commanding,

Page No.# 3/3

115 RCC, GREF) and the land record staff, the name of the petitioner was not found in possession of land in question of Dag No. 554/KA under 2^nd RS Patta No. 207. It is their further stand that as per Zirat list, in Dag in question, the names of one Rahim Uddin Laskar, son of Late Said Ali Laskar and four others are recorded as possession holder and therefore, the payment of compensation could not be made.

5. In reference to this Court’s order dated 27.01.2025, the learned counsel for the State respondent submits that she has received instruction from the Additional District Commissioner, Cachar Silchar issued under its communication dated 10.02.2025 that no payment has been made to the petitioner.

6. From the aforesaid, it is seen that there is a claim and counter claim between the parties as regards the entitlement and apportionment of compensation in question. Therefore, in the considered opinion of this Court, such dispute cannot be determined in exercise of power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, this writ petition stands closed with a direction to the Collector to take legal course as prescribed under law and under Section 11 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 as acquisition process is stated to be initiated under the said Act, 1894. Such exercise be carried out within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order to be furnished by the petitioner before the Land Acquisition Collector in connection with LA Case No. 07/2001-02.

JUDGE

Comparing Assistant