Imam Uddin Vs the Union of India and 5 Ors.

THE UNION OF INDIA AND 5 ORS REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF ROAD, TRANSPORT AND HIGHWAYS, TRANSPORT BHAWAN-1, PARLIAMENT STREET, NEW DELHI-110001.

¶10

2:THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM REVENUE (SETTLEMENT) DEPARTMENT DISPUR GUWAHATI-6.

¶11

3:THE DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER (P) PMU/SILCHAR NATIONAL HIGHWAYS AND INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LIMITED PMU PESKAR LANE SONAI ROAD KANAKPUR PT-I SILCHAR-788006.

¶12

4:THE DISTRICT COMMISSIONER HAILAKANDI PIN- 788151

¶13

5:THE LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER CUM ADDL. DISTRICT COMMISSIONER HAILAKANDI

¶14

Page No.# 2/5

¶15

PIN- 788151.

¶16

6:THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER PWD BUILDING DIVISION CACHAR SILCHAR

¶17

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. A Y CHOUDHURY, I HASHMI

¶18

Advocate for the Respondent : DY.S.G.I., SC, PWD,SC, REVENUE,SC, NHIDC,GA, ASSAM

¶19

Page No.# 3/5

¶20

BEFORE

¶21

HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N. UNNI KRISHNAN NAIR

¶22

ORDER

¶23

Date : 08.08.2025

¶24

Heard Mr. A. Y. Choudhury, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. R. Bora, learned Standing Counsel, NHIDCL, appearing for the respondent nos.1 & 3 and Ms. M. Bordoloi, learned Standing Counsel, Revenue Department, appears for respondent no.2. and Mr. J. Handique, learned Government Advocate, appears for respondent nos.4 & 5 and Ms. R. M. Barua, learned counsel, appears for the respondent no.6.

¶25

2. Taking into account the dispute involved in the instant writ petition, this Court is of the considered view that the present writ petition can be disposed of at the motion stage itself. The learned counsel for the parties have also agreed to the disposal of the present writ petition.

¶26

3. The petitioner in the writ petition has projected that 3 parcels of land belonging to him were acquired by the NHIDCL authorities for construction and expansion of the Highway under the provisions of the National Highways Act, 1956. It is submitted that the plots of land of the petitioner which have been so acquired by the respondent authorities are commercial as well as homestead properties. The respondents while computing the compensation due to the petitioner for the parcels of land acquired from him, had so made the computation by construing the value of the land at a very low rate in clear violation of the provisions of the National Highway Act, 1956, read with the provisions of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation, and Resettlement Act, 2013.

¶27

Page No.# 4/5

¶28

4. It is projected that the said land was acquired by the NHIDCL authorities for expansion of the National Highway under the provisions of the National Highway Act, 1956.

¶29

5. The petitioner further projects that the said land although being a purely commercial land, the respondent authorities while computing the compensation required to be authorized to the petitioner for such acquisition of his land had paid inadequate compensation by considering the value of the land at a very lower rate. It is further submitted that the compensation as computed in the matter was so done in clear violation of the provisions of the National Highways Act, 1956, read with the provisions of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation, and Resettlement Act, 2013.

¶30

6. Mr. A. Y. Choudhury, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has already submitted a representation in the matter before the respondent authorities on 24.01.2025, praying for enhancement of the land compensation, however, the said is yet to be taken to its logical conclusion.

¶31

7. It is under the circumstances that the petitioner, herein, has therefore approached this Court by way of filing the instant writ petition.

¶32

8. This Court having taken note of the provisions of the National Highways Act, 1956, is of the considered opinion that if the petitioner, herein, is aggrieved with the inadequacy of the compensation, he has the option of approaching the competent authority seeking a reference to the Arbitrator in terms of the provisions of Section 3(G)(5) of the National Highways Act, 1956. Further to that, once the determination has already been done by the competent authority; the same can only be modified, and/of, interfered with

¶33

Page No.# 5/5

¶34

except in terms of the provisions of Section 3(G)(5) of the National Highways Act, 1956.

¶35

9. Under such circumstances, this Court disposes of the instant writ petition, granting liberty to the petitioner, herein, to submit a fresh application before the competent authority whereby he may seek reference to the Arbitrator in terms of the provisions of Section 3(G)(5) of the National Highways Act, 1956.

¶36

10. Mr. A. Y. Choudhury, has submitted that the petitioner, herein, shall carryout the said exercise forthwith and submits a fresh application before the competent authority.

¶37

11. In view thereof, this Court directs the competent authority that, in the event, the petitioner, herein, submits the application, in question, in terms of the provisions of Section 3(G)(5) of the National Highways Act, 1956; the same be referred to the Arbitrator who has been duly appointed by the Central Government forthwith but not later than 20 days from the date of submission of such application.

¶38

12. With the above observations and directions, this writ petition accordingly, stands disposed of.

¶39

JUDGE

¶40

Comparing Assistant

Imam Uddin v. the Union of India and 5 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Imam Uddin v. the Union of India 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

Subrat Sarma Vs the State of Assam and 3 Ors.

Fuel Sources (India) Pvt. Ltd. Vs Union of India and 3 Ors.

Amit Jasrasaria Vs the Union of India and 4 Ors.

Smt. Ananya Dey and Anr. Vs the Union of India and 6 Ors.

Abdul Kuddus Vs the Union of India and Ors.

Kamrul Islam Barbhuiya Vs the Union of India and 5 Ors.