Abdul Kuddus Vs the Union of India and Ors. — Land Acquisition | Gauhati HC (2025)

Abdul Kuddus Vs the Union of India and Ors. — Land Acquisition | Gauhati HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Writ petition disposed of at the motion stage, granting the petitioner liberty to submit a fresh application before the competent authority seeking reference to the Arbitrator in terms of Section 3(G)(5) of the National Highways Act, 1956; competent authority directed to refer any such application to the Central Government-appointed Arbitrator within 20 days of its submission.

Issue for consideration

Whether a petitioner aggrieved by the inadequacy of compensation paid for land acquired under the National Highways Act, 1956 has an available statutory remedy, and how the writ petition should be dealt with in consequence.

Court's answer

A person aggrieved by the inadequacy of compensation for land acquired under the National Highways Act, 1956 may approach the competent authority seeking a reference to the Arbitrator in terms of Section 3(G)(5) of that Act; once determination has been made by the competent authority, it can only be modified or interfered with in terms of Section 3(G)(5).

Ratio / Principle

If the petitioner submits an application in terms of Section 3(G)(5) of the National Highways Act, 1956, the competent authority shall refer it to the Arbitrator duly appointed by the Central Government forthwith, but not later than 20 days from the date of submission of such application.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Land acquisition — National Highways Act, 1956 — inadequacy of compensation — petitioner's purely commercial land measuring 15 Katha (Dag No.315, R.S. Patta No.123) at Porgona-Hailakandi acquired by NHIDCL for construction and expansion of the National Highway; petitioner claimed compensation was computed at a very low rate in violation of the National Highways Act, 1956 read with the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation, and Resettlement Act, 2013, and his representation dated 30.12.2024 for enhancement remained unresolved. Court held that a person aggrieved by inadequacy of compensation has the option of approaching the competent authority seeking a reference to the Arbitrator in terms of Section 3(G)(5) of the National Highways Act, 1956, and that a determination once made by the competent authority can only be modified or interfered with in terms of Section 3(G)(5). Writ petition disposed of at the motion stage with liberty to file a fresh application before the competent authority; competent authority directed to refer such application to the Arbitrator duly appointed by the Central Government forthwith, and not later than 20 days from submission.

Page No.# 1/4

GAHC010168802025

2025:GAU-AS:10452

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

Case No. : WP(C)/4461/2025

ABDUL KUDDUS

S/O- MOSAD ALI, VILL- KALINAGAR PART -I, P.O- KALINAGAR, P.S- PANCHGRAM, DIST- HAILAKANDI, PIN-788801, ASSAM

VERSUS

THE UNION OF INDIA AND ORS REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO THE MINISTRY OF ROAD, TRANSPORT AND HIGHWAYS, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, TRANSPORT BHAWAN, NO.1 PARLIAMENT STREET, NEW DELHI. PIN-110001

2:THE STATE OF ASSAM

REP. BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM REVENUE (SETTLEMENT) DEPARTMENT DISPUR GUWAHATI-06

3:THE DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER NATIONAL HIGHWAYS AND INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD PESKAR LANE SONAI ROAD KANAKPUR PT (I) SILCHAR DIST- CACHAR ASSAM PIN-788006.

4:THE DISTRICT COMMISSIONER HAILAKANDI PIN-788151

Page No.# 2/4

5:THE LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER CUM ADDL. DISTRICT COMMISSIONER HAILAKANDI PIN-788151

6:THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER PWD BUILDING DIVISION CACHAR SILCHA

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

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

Page No.# 3/4

BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N. UNNI KRISHNAN NAIR

ORDER

Date : 08.08.2025

Heard Mr. A. Y. Choudhury, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. R. K. Talukdar, 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.

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.

3. The petitioner projects that he is the owner of land measuring 15 Katha covered by Dag No.315 and R.S. Patta No.123, situated at Porgona-Hailakandi. The said land was acquired from the petitioner by the NHIDCL for construction and expansion of the National Highway, under the provisions of the National Highways Act, 1956.

4. 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.

5. 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 30.12.2024, praying for enhancement of the land compensation, however, the same is yet to be taken to its logical conclusion.

Page No.# 4/4

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

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

8. 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.

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

10. 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.

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

JUDGE

Comparing Assistant