Disposed¶42

Ismail Hussain and 9 Ors. v. Union of India and 6 Ors.

Gauhati HC10 Aug 2025WP(C)/4612/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Solatium; interest; additional compensation; Additional Market Value; land acquisition; patta lands; NHAI; National Highway 31 extension; Union of India v. Tarsem Singh (2019) 9 SCC 304; Supreme Court judgment dated 04.02.2025 in Miscellaneous Application/1773/2021 in Civil Appeal No. 7064/2019; direction to Competent Authority (Land Acquisition) and Project Director NHAI Bongaigaon; two-month compliance timeline; WP(C)/4612/2018; Gauhati High Court; Justice Sanjay Kumar Medhi; disposed at admission stage.

What did the court decide?

Direction to respondent nos. 5 and 6 to examine the petitioners' case strictly in accordance with Tarsem Singh and pay the entitled solatium and additional compensation at the appropriate rate in accordance with law, within two months. ¶42

Ismail Hussain and 9 Ors. Vs Union of India and 6 Ors. — Gauhati HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶42

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioners are entitled to payment of proper solatium and compensation (including interest/additional compensation in terms of Tarsem Singh) for their patta lands acquired by the National Highway Authority in connection with the extension of National Highway 31.

¶36

Court's answer

The writ petition is disposed of by directing the respondent authorities, particularly respondent nos. 5 (Competent Authority, Land Acquisition) and 6 (Project Director, NHAI), to examine the petitioners' case strictly in accordance with the principles laid down in Tarsem Singh and to pay the entitled solatium and additional compensation at the appropriate rate in accordance with law.

¶42

Ratio / Principle

The exercise of examining the petitioners' case and paying the solatium and additional compensation is to be undertaken and completed within a period of two months.

¶42

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Gauhati High Court (Sanjay Kumar Medhi, J.) disposed of, at the admission stage, a writ petition pending since 2018 by residents of Goraimari, Bongaigaon whose patta lands were acquired by the National Highway Authority in connection with the extension of National Highway 31, the grievance being non-payment of proper solatium and compensation. Noting that the Hon'ble Supreme Court, by judgment dated 04.02.2025 in Miscellaneous Application/1773/2021 in Civil Appeal No. 7064/2019, dismissed the Miscellaneous Application and reaffirmed the principles established in Tarsem Singh regarding the beneficial nature of granting 'solatium' and 'interest', the Court disposed of the writ petition by directing respondent nos. 5 (Competent Authority, Land Acquisition) and 6 (Project Director, NHAI, Bongaigaon) to examine the petitioners' case strictly in accordance with the principles laid down in Tarsem Singh, reported in (2019) 9 SCC 304, and to pay the entitled solatium and additional compensation at the appropriate rate in accordance with law, completing the exercise within a period of two months.

Page No.# 1/5

GAHC010139602018

undefined

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

¶5

Case No. : WP(C)/4612/2018

¶6

ISMAIL HUSSAIN AND 9 ORS.

¶7

SON OF LATE HASEN ALI, VILLAGE AND P.O. GORAIMARI, P.S. AND DIST. BONGAIGAON, ASSAM, PIN- 783390.

¶8

2: ABDUR RAHIM SON OF LATE JALAL UDDIN SK VILLAGE AND P.O.- GORAIMARI P.S. AND DIST. BONGAIGAON ASSAM PIN- 783390.

¶9

3: ABU BAKKAR SIDDIQUE SON OF LATE MAKKAR ALI VILLAGE AND P.O.- GORAIMARI P.S. AND DIST. BONGAIGAON ASSAM PIN- 783390.

¶10

4: MANTAZ ALI SON OF ABU BAKKAR SIDDIQUE VILLAGE AND P.O.- GORAIMARI P.S. AND DIST. BONGAIGAON ASSAM PIN- 783390.

¶11

5: ROHIJ UDDIN SK SON OF JAHAR ALI VILLAGE AND P.O.- GORAIMARI P.S. AND DIST. BONGAIGAON ASSAM PIN- 783390.

¶12

6: NOWSAD ALI S/O. RAHIJ UDDIN

¶13

Page No.# 2/5

¶14

VILLAGE AND P.O.- GORAIMARI P.S. AND DIST. BONGAIGAON ASSAM PIN- 783390.

¶15

7: SUSHIL CH. DAS S/O. LATE SHOSHI MOHAN DAS VILLAGE AND P.O.- GORAIMARI P.S. AND DIST. BONGAIGAON ASSAM PIN- 783390.

¶16

8: ABDUL ROUF BANIYA S/O. LATE ASMOT ALI BANIYA VILLAGE AND P.O.- GORAIMARI P.S. AND DIST. BONGAIGAON ASSAM PIN- 783390.

¶17

9: SANATAN DAS

¶18

SON OF SOCHINDRA MOHAN DAS VILLAGE AND P.O.- GORAIMARI P.S. AND DIST. BONGAIGAON ASSAM PIN- 783390.

¶19

10: RATAN BALA DAS WIFE OF SOCHINDRA MOHAN DAS VILLAGE AND P.O.- GORAIMARI P.S. AND DIST. BONGAIGAON ASSAM PIN- 783390

¶20

VERSUS

¶21

UNION OF INDIA AND 6 ORS. REP. BY THE SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF ROAD TRANSPORT AND HIGHWAY, PIN- 110001.

¶22

2:STATE OF ASSAM THROUGH THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM REVENUE (SETTLEMENT) DEPTT. DISPUR GUWAHATI ASSAM. PIN- 781005.

¶23

3:DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BONGAIGAON

¶24

Page No.# 3/5

¶25

P.O. AND DIST. BONGAIGAON ASSAM. PIN- 783380. 4:NATIONAL HIGHWAY AUTHORITY OF INDIA (NHAI) MINISTRY OF ROAD TRANSPORT AND HIGHWAY) B-586 SECTOR 10 DWARAKA NEW DELHI. PIN- 110075. 5:COMPETENT AUTHORITY LAND ACQUISITION (CALA) THROUGH THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BONGAIGAON P.O. AND DIST. BONGAIGAON ASSAM PIN- 783380. 6:PROJECT DIRECTOR NATIONAL HIGHWAY AUTHORITY OF INDIA (NHAI) BONGAIGAON P.O. AND DIST. BONGAIGAON ASSAM PIN- 783380. 7:THE CIRCLE OFFICER BIJNI REVENUE CIRCLE BONGAIGAON P.O. BIJNI DIST. CHIRANG ASSAM PIN- 783390

¶26

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR A DASGUPTA, MR. B DAS,MS. B DAS,MR. R SARKAR

¶27

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

¶28

BEFORE

¶29

HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR MEDHI

¶30

ORDER

¶31

11.08.2025

¶32

Heard Shri A Dasgupta, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Ms. B Das, learned counsel for the petitioners and Shri C Boruah, learned Standing Counsel, NHAI. Also heard Ms. M

¶33

Page No.# 4/5

¶34

Barman, learned State Counsel, Assam as well as Ms. G Hazarika, learned Standing Counsel, Revenue Department, Assam.

¶35

2. Considering the facts and circumstances involved in this writ petition pending since the year 2018 and also taking note of the fact that the Hon’ble Supreme Court has passed the judgment in the case referred in the earlier orders, this writ petition is taken up for disposal at the admission stage.

¶36

3. The grievance of the petitioner is of non-payment of proper solatium and compensation of patta lands which were acquired by the National Highway Authority in connection with extension of National Highway 31. During the course of the proceeding, this Court was informed that the aspect of the applicability of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Union of India & Arn. Vs. Tarsem Singh & Ors. , reported in (2019) 9 SCC 304 was before consideration before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Miscellaneous Application/1773/2021 in Civil Appeal No. 7064/2019.

¶37

4. Shri Dasgupta, the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the Hon’ble Supreme Court has passed a judgment on 04.02.2025 wherein it has been held that the law laid down in the case of Tarsem Singh ( supra ) would be applicable.

¶38

5. For ready reference, the observations made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court are extracted herein below:

¶39

“ 25. In view of the foregoing analysis, we find no merit in the contentions raised by the Applicant, NHAL. We reaffirm the principles established in Tarsem Singh (supra) regarding the beneficial nature of granting 'solatium' and interest' while emphasising the need to avoid creating unjust classifications lacking intelligible differentia. Consequently, we deem it appropriate to dismiss the present Miscellaneous Application.

¶40

Page No.# 5/5

¶41

26. Leave is granted in the other connected matters, and all the appeals are disposed of with a direction to the Competent Authority to calculate the amount of 'solatium' and 'interest' in accordance with the directions issued in Tarsem Singh (supra). In this context, the appeal arising out of SLP (C) Diary No. 52538/2023 is dismissed, as the challenge therein pertains to the High Court's refusal to award Additional Market Value as another component of the compensation, while 'solatium' and 'interest' have already been granted. ”

¶42

6. In view of the aforesaid clarification made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in its judgment dated 04.02.2025 mentioned above, this writ petition is disposed of by directing the respondent authorities, more particularly respondent nos. 5 and 6 to examine the case of the petitioners in strictly in accordance with the principles laid down in the case of Tarsem Singh ( supra ) and pay the entitled solatium and additional compensation at the appropriate rate in accordance with law. The aforesaid exercise be undertaken and completed within a period of 2 (two) months from today.

¶43

JUDGE

¶44

Comparing Assistant

Ismail Hussain and 9 Ors. v. Union of India and 6 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ismail Hussain and 9 Ors. v. Union of India and 6 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Gulmehara Khatun Vs the State of Assam and Othrs

Eliza Begum Vs the State of Assam and Othrs

Shiv Narayan Prasad Vs the State of Assam and Othrs

Smti Premoda Tamuli and 4 Ors. Vs the State of Assam and 5 Ors.

Sri Pritam Sovasaria Vs the Union of India

Ronen Warisa Vs the State of Assam