Allowed

Nizara Nath v. Mr Manoj Kumar

Gauhati HC14 Sept 2026I.A.(Civil)/3232/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

An interlocutory application seeking impleadment of the Deputy Inspector General, SSB, as a party in a contempt petition was allowed. The court held the authority necessary due to its prior participation in the main writ petition and alleged non-compliance with compensation directions.

What did the court decide?

Interlocutory application for impleadment of the proposed party as respondent no. 2 in the contempt petition is allowed.

Nizara Nath Vs Mr Manoj Kumar — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Gauhati HC (2026)

Page No.# 1/5

GAHC010196782026

undefined

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

¶5

Case No. : I.A.(Civil)/3232/2026

¶6

NIZARA NATH

¶7

W/O JAYANTA BARUAH, R/O HAHARA, P.O. MORANJANA, P.S. KAMALPUR, KAMRUP, ASSAM.

¶8

VERSUS

¶9

MR MANOJ KUMAR

¶10

DEPUTY INSPECTOR GENERAL, SHQ SSB RANGIA, P.O. RANGIA, KAMRUP, ASSAM, PIN 781354

¶11

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. A DEKA,

¶12

Advocate for the Respondent : MR. D NATH,

¶13

BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MANISH CHOUDHURY

¶14

ORDER

¶15

Date : 15-09-2026

¶16

Heard Mr. A. Deka, learned counsel for the applicant; and Mr. R. Sahiinii, learned counsel for the sole opposite party.

¶17

The instant interlocutory application has been filed seeking impleadment of the following authority :-

¶18

Page No.# 2/5

¶19

‘Mr. Manoj Kumar, the Deputy Inspector General,

¶20

Sashastra Seema Bal [SSB], SHQ SSB Rangia,

¶21

P.O.- Rangia, Kamrup, Assam’

¶22

as party-respondent no. 2 in the accompanying contempt petition,

¶23

Cont.Case [C] no. 39/2026.

¶24

The Union of India in the Ministry of Home Affairs and three other petitioners preferred a writ petition, W.P.[C] no. 1436/2024 assailing an Order dated 08.06.2023 passed by the Deputy Commissioner & Collector, Kamrup whereby amounts of Rs. 9,00,087/- and Rs. 2,23,74,724/- were determined as requisition/acquisition compensation payable against requisition/acquisition of land concerned therein at Villages - Hahara & Maranjana. In the said writ petition, the applicant herein i.e. the petitioner in Cont.Case [C] no. 39/2026 was impleaded as party-respondent no. 7.

¶25

The writ petition was heard and disposed of by a Judgment and Order dated 08.08.2025 with the following observations and directions :-

¶26

Accordingly, for the reasons recorded herein above and determination made, the following directions are issued :

¶27

I. Impugned order dated 08.06.2023 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Kamrup [Collector] stands set aside and quashed.

¶28

II. The matter is remanded back to the Collector to decide afresh the requisition compensation in terms of Section 11 of the Act, 1964 and also in terms of the determination made hereinabove and made in judgment dated 25.07.2022.

¶29

III. After the compensation is determined, pay the same with the applicable interest, if any permitted under the Act, 1964.

¶30

Page No.# 3/5

¶31

IV. The entire exercise shall be carried out within 3 months from receipt of a certified copy of this order to be furnished before the Collector/Deputy Commissioner by either of the parties.

¶32

V. Writ petition stand disposed of. Parties to bear their own costs.

¶33

Subsequent to the Judgment and Order dated 08.08.2025 [supra], the applicant submitted a copy of the Judgment and Order dated 08.08.2025 to the Deputy Commissioner & Collector, Kamrup on 21.08.2025 requesting the said authority to carry out the exercise in terms of the directions made in the Judgment and Order dated 08.08.2025. When the exercise was not completed within the stipulated period of three months, from the date of receipt of a copy of the Order, the applicant herein as the petitioner, has instituted the accompanying contempt petition, Cont.Case [C] no. 39/2026 impleading the Deputy Commissioner & Collector, Kamrup as the sole respondent.

¶34

It is averred that the cause of action to file the instant interlocutory application seeking impleadment of the afore-mentioned authority has arisen for the fact that the sole respondent in Cont.Case [C] no. 39/2026 i.e. the Deputy Commissioner [presently, District Commissioner] & Collector, Kamrup, had, in the meantime, assessed the revised rental award estimates in terms of the directions made in the Judgment and Order dated 08.08.2025 at Rs. 2,10,17,021/-. It is averred that the proposed party-respondent was intimated by an Office Letter dated 07.01.2026 about the exercise to be carried out to assess the revised rental award estimates and to depute a representative from his end for calculating the compensation amount. It is averred that despite being aware of it, the proposed party-respondent did not depute any representative. The District Commissioner & Collector, Kamrup had, thereafter,

¶35

Page No.# 4/5

¶36

proceeded to calculate the revised rental award estimate for the requisition/acquisition of the plots of land at Villages – Hahara & Maranjana, for the proceedings in respect of L.A. Case no. 06/2019 and L.A. Case no. 07/2019 and had made a revised rental award estimate at Rs. 2,10,17,021/-. Thereafter, by an Office Letter dated 15.07.2026, the District Commissioner & Collector, Kamrup requested the proposed party-respondent to place the requisite funds amounting to Rs. 2,10,17,021/-. It is averred that despite the intimation given by the District Commissioner & Collector, Kamrup to the proposed partyrespondent on 15.07.2026, the proposed party-respondent has not responded and deposited the requisite fund with the District Commissioner & Collector, Kamrup till date. As a result of such non-response which is claimed to be an act of disobedience on his part, the instant interlocutory application is filed seeking his impleadment as party-respondent no. 2 in the contempt petition, Cont.Case [C] no. 39/2026.

¶37

In contempt jurisdiction, a party not originally impleaded in the main proceedings can be held liable for contempt if he has knowledge of the court’s order and act in a manner that willfully prevents its compliance or aids or abets its violation. The proposed party-respondent was the petitioner no. 3 in the writ petition, W.P.[C] no. 1436/2024. It is, thus, contended that being a party in the writ petition, W.P.[C] no. 1436/2024, the proposed party-respondent has to abide by the revised award estimates prepared in terms of the directions made by this Court in the Judgment and Order dated 08.08.2025.

¶38

Having regard to the aforesaid projection, this Court is of the considered view that the proposed party-respondent no. 2 is a necessary party in the accompanying contempt petition, Cont.Case [C] no. 39/2026. Therefore, the

¶39

Page No.# 5/5

¶40

instant interlocutory application seeking his impleadment is allowed.

¶41

The learned counsel for the applicant & the petitioner in Cont.Case [C] no. 39/2026, shall file an amended Cause-Title in terms of the Notification no. 79 dated 19.06.2023 before the Registry for impleadment of the afore-stated authority as party-respondent no. 2 within 2 [two] working days from today. On filing of such amended Cause-Title, the Registry is to carry out necessary corrections in the Cause-Title of the contempt petition as well as in the CIS.

¶42

JUDGE

¶43

Comparing Assistant

Nizara Nath v. Mr Manoj Kumar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nizara Nath v. Mr Manoj Kumar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases