Dismissed¶¶43

Sayed Isfak Hussain v. the State of Assam and Othrs

Gauhati HC3 May 2026WP(C)/2260/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Gauhati High Court, WP(C)/2260/2026, decided 04-05-2026, Manish Choudhury, J. Maintainability of writ petition after dismissal on withdrawal without liberty; subsequent representation does not create fresh cause of action; repeated representations since 2001 not a fresh cause of action; land acquisition compensation claim under Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and 2013 Act; misleading statement in writ petition; no costs imposed as petitioner is senior citizen of about 72 years.

What did the court decide?

The liberty granted by the Order dated 17.03.2026 in W.P.(C) no. 3097/2024 was to approach the Court only on a fresh cause of action. ¶¶41

Sayed Isfak Hussain Vs the State of Assam and Othrs — Land Acquisition | Gauhati HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶¶43

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner is entitled to a direction to the respondent authorities to release appropriate compensation for acquisition of his land acquired in 2001, under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 read with the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. +1 more

¶¶27

Ratio / Principle

The liberty granted by the Order dated 17.03.2026 in W.P.(C) no. 3097/2024 was to approach the Court only on a fresh cause of action.

¶¶41

Key takeaways

After disposal of the previous writ petition by the Order dated 17.03.2026, mere filing of another Representation on 23.03.2026 would not give rise to a fresh cause of action.ratio¶¶41
After repeated representations since 2001 against a particular issue, submission of the Representation dated 23.03.2026 cannot be termed a fresh cause of action.ratio¶¶41
The petitioner made a misleading statement in the writ petition by projecting that liberty to file afresh had been granted on withdrawal of the earlier writ petition; the Court refrained from imposing costs considering that he is a senior citizen of about 72 years.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a direction to the respondent authorities to release compensation for the petitioner's land measuring 3 Bighas 3 Kathas 1.34 Lessas, acquired in 2001 in L.A. Case no. 06/2001-2002 under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, for a flood control and marginal embankment project. The petitioner's earlier writ petition, W.P.(C) no. 3097/2024, seeking the same relief was dismissed on withdrawal, without liberty, by Order dated 17.03.2026, liberty being reserved only on a fresh cause of action. The petitioner asserted in the present petition that liberty to file afresh had been granted, which the Court found to be a misleading statement. Held: after disposal of the previous writ petition, mere filing of a Representation dated 23.03.2026 — being one of repeated representations since 2001 against the same issue — would not give rise to a fresh cause of action. Writ petition dismissed; no costs imposed, the petitioner being a senior citizen of about 72 years.

Page No.# 1/6

GAHC010081802026

2026:GAU-AS:6036

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

¶5

Case No. : WP(C)/2260/2026

¶6

SAYED ISFAK HUSSAIN

¶7

, S/O. LATE SAMSUDDIN AHMED, R/O. VILL- BAGACHALA, MOZA- DIPILA, P.S.- SIPAJHAR, MANGALDOI, P.O.- TENGARA, DIST. -DARRANG, ASSAM. PIN NO. 784148.

¶8

VERSUS

¶9

THE STATE OF ASSAM AND OTHRS

¶10

REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM, THE DISASTER MANAGEMENT AND LAND REVENUE DEPARTMENT, DMLR DISPUR, GHY-6, KAMRUP M, ASSAM.

¶11

2:THE DEPUTY SECRETARY TO THE GOVT OF ASSAM THE DISASTER MANAGEMENT AND LAND REVENUE DEPARTMENT DMLR DISPUR GHY - 06 KAMRUP M ASSAM

¶12

3:THE DISTRICT COMMISSIONER DARRANG MONGALDOI ASSAM PIN - 784125.

¶13

4:THE UNDER SECRETARY TO THE GOVT OF ASSAM WATER RESOURCE DEPARTMENT CHANDMARI GHY - 03 KAMRUP M ASSAM.

¶14

Page No.# 2/6

¶15

5:THE CHIEF ENGINEER WATER RESOURCE DEPARTMENT CHANDMARI GHY - 03 KAMRUP M ASSAM. 6:THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER

¶16

MANGALDOI WATER RESOURCES DIVISION MANGALDOI DARRANG ASSAM PIN- 784125. 7:THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM FINANCE DEPARTMENT DISPUR GUWAHATI- 06 KAMRUP M ASSAM

¶17

Advocate for the Petitioner : A KASHYAP, MR. R C DAS

¶18

Advocate for the Respondent : GA, ASSAM, SC. WATER RESOURCE DEPTT.,SC, FINANCE,SC, REVENUE

¶19

BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MANISH CHOUDHURY

¶20

ORDER

¶21

Date : 04-05-2026

¶22

Heard Mr. R.C. Das, learned counsel for the petitioner; Ms. N. Bordoloi, learned Standing Counsel, Revenue Department for the respondent nos. 1 & 2; Ms. M. Barman, learned Junior Government Advocate, Assam for the respondent no. 3; Ms. P. Chakraborty, learned Standing Counsel, Water Resources Department for the respondent nos. 4, 5 & 6; and Mr. A. Chaliha, learned

¶23

Page No.# 3/6

¶24

Standing Counsel, Finance Department for the respondent no. 7.

¶25

In this writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has projected that a parcel of land measuring 3 Bighas 3 Kathas 1.34 Lessas, belonging to him, was acquired by the respondent authorities in the year 2001 vide a land acquisition proceeding registered as L.A. Case no. 06/2001-2002 for the purpose of ‘Flood Control and Construction of Marginal Embankment in both Banks of River Ghagra from Patgirichuba to Duni Patgirighat PWD Road, Darrang, Mangaldoi, Assam’.

¶26

The said land acquisition proceeding was initiated under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, as amended.

¶27

In this writ petition, the petitioner has sought for a direction to the respondent authorities to release appropriate compensation for acquisition of his land under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 read with the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013.

¶28

It has been brought to the notice of the Court by the learned counsel for the respondents that the petitioner seeking the same relief had earlier instituted a writ petition, W.P.[C] no. 3097/2024, which was dismissed on withdrawal, without liberty by an Order dated 17.03.2026 and the petitioner has projected incorrectly in the present petition that liberty was granted to the petitioner while withdrawing the said writ petition on 17.03.2026.

¶29

Page No.# 4/6

¶30

In paragraph 3 of the writ petition, the petitioner has stated that the earlier writ petition, W.P.[C] no. 3097/2024 was withdrawn due to some clerical errors on 17.03.2026 with liberty to file afresh. The petitioner has further stated that a Representation dated 23.03.2026 [Annexure-IV] was thereafter, submitted before the respondent authorities either personally or through post. After submitting or sending the Representation dated 23.03.2026, the petitioner has filed this writ petition on 27.04.2026 seeking the same relief, as sought for in the previous writ petition, W.P.[C] no. 3097/2024.

¶31

It is averred in paragraph 5 of the writ petition that the petitioner has averred as under :-

¶32

That with regards the petitioner begs to mention that the petitioner had been approached on 07.06.2024 being W.P.[C] no. 3097/2024 before the Hon’ble High court in respect of land acquisition compensation qua the petitioner land was acquired by the authority, Govt. of Assam, on 2001 for flood control scheme in the jurisdiction of Mangaldoi, Darrang. But the petitioner came to now content of the writ petition had been plenty inadvertently clerical mistaken, so it was indispensable to withdrawal the said writ petition as well as ditto W.P.[C] no. 3097/2024 has withdrawal on 17.03.2026 with liberty file a fresh.

¶33

From paragraph 5, quoted above, it is evident that the petitioner has made a clear statement that the previous writ petition, W.P.[C] no. 3097/2024 was withdrawn on 17.03.2026 with liberty to file afresh.

¶34

Mr. Das, learned counsel for the petitioner has further contended that the filing of the Representation has given rise to a fresh cause of action to institute the present writ petition.

¶35

Page No.# 5/6

¶36

On 17.03.2026, the Court had passed the following Order in the writ petition, W.P.[C] no. 3097/2024 :-

¶37

Shri R.C. Das, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he has instructions not to press this writ petition. He has also prayed for a liberty.

¶38

Ms. M. Barman, learned State Counsel, Assam and Ms. Tinlung, learned counsel appearing on instructions of Shri R.M. Das, learned Standing Counsel, Water Resource Department have submitted that though they do not have any objection with regard to the aspect of withdrawal of this writ petition, they have serious reservations on the aspect of granting liberty. A similar stand has been taken by Ms. G. Hazarika, learned Standing Counsel, Revenue Department.

¶39

Under the aforesaid circumstances, while this writ petition is dismissed on withdrawal, it is made clear that only on a fresh cause of action, the petitioner would be at liberty to approach this Court.

¶40

From the contents of the Order dated 17.03.2026, it is clear that only on a fresh cause of action, the petitioner has been granted the liberty to approach this Court. After disposal of the previous writ petition by the Order dated 17.03.2026, mere filing of another Representation on 23.03.2026 would not give rise to a fresh cause of action. In this writ petition, the petitioner has stated that he has been approaching the respondent authorities verbally and through representations since 2001 and his last representation is of 23.03.2026. After repeated representations since 2001 against a particular issue, submission of the Representation on 23.03.2026 cannot be termed as a fresh cause of action.

¶41

In view of the nature of liberty granted by the Order dated 17.03.2026 by the coordinate bench and considering the view that the filing of the

¶42

Page No.# 6/6

¶43

Representation dated 23.03.2026 could not give rise to a fresh cause of action, the writ petition stands dismissed. Having considered that the petitioner is a senior citizen of about 72 years, the Court has refrained from imposing any cost for making misleading statement in the writ petition.

¶44

Comparing Assistant

Sayed Isfak Hussain v. the State of Assam and Othrs

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sayed Isfak Hussain v. the State of Assam and Othrs

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Gora Ai Rigio and 9 Ors. Vs The State of Ap and 3 Ors.

Gonong Pertin Vs The State of Ap and 5 Ors.

Leyu Gangam Nilling Vs The State of Ap and 4 Others

Lalita Das and 3 Ors. Vs the State of Assam and 5 Ors.

M/S Lunia Marketing Pvt. Ltd. Vs the Ld. Technical Member of the Railway Claims Tribunal, Guwahati Bench and 4 Ors.

Nabin Chetia Vs the State of Assam and 4 Ors.