Disposed¶42

Sitaram Kanoo and 17 Ors. v. the Union of India and 3 Ors.

Gauhati HC7 Jun 2026WP(C)/2716/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

zirat compensation; revised zirat compensation Rs. 32,85,501; NH-154 land acquisition; Dhaleswari-Bhairabi Bypass; Hailakandi; arbitral award dated 01.07.2017; enforcement of arbitration award; non-release of compensation; PWD (NH) Assam; Union of India Ministry of Road Transport and Highways; WP(C) No. 6487/2024 compliance; Cont. Cas(C) No. 228/2025; second round of litigation; mandamus for disbursement; three-month payment direction; writ petition disposed of.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the respondent authorities to complete the process for payment of the revised zirat compensation of Rs. 32,85,501/- to the petitioners within 3 (three) months from receipt of a certified copy of the order. ¶42

Sitaram Kanoo and 17 Ors. Vs the Union of India and 3 Ors. — Gauhati HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

Page No.# 1/6

GAHC010099422026

2026:GAU-AS:7975

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

¶5

Case No. : WP(C)/2716/2026

¶6

SITARAM KANOO AND 17 ORS

¶7

S/O LATE SIBA PRASAD KANOO, R/O VILLAGE PALOICHERRA PART II, P.O. SULTANICHERRA, DIST. HAILAKANDI, ASSAM

¶8

2: KESHAB PRASAD KANU S/O SRI PRASHAD KANU R/O VILLAGE PALOICHERRA PART II P.O. SULTANICHERRA DIST. HAILAKANDI ASSAM

¶9

3: MIRA KANU D/O LATE BRAJARANGI KANU R/O VILLAGE PALOICHERRA PART II P.O. SULTANICHERRA DIST. HAILAKANDI ASSAM

¶10

4: SUBODH KANU S/O LATE PUJAN KANU R/O VILLAGE PALOICHERRA PART II P.O. SULTANICHERRA DIST. HAILAKANDI ASSAM 5: PRATIMA KANU D/O LATE PUJAN KANU R/O VILLAGE PALOICHERRA PART II P.O. SULTANICHERRA DIST. HAILAKANDI ASSAM 6: BIDYA SAGAR KANU S/O LATE PUJAN KANU R/O VILLAGE PALOICHERRA PART II P.O. SULTANICHERRA DIST. HAILAKANDI ASSAM

¶11

Page No.# 2/6

¶12

7: RAJEN KANU S/O BRAJARANGI KANU R/O VILLAGE PALOICHERRA PART II P.O. SULTANICHERRA DIST. HAILAKANDI ASSAM 8: PRATAP DAS S/O LATE RANJIT DAS R/O VILLAGE PALOICHERRA PART II P.O. SULTANICHERRA DIST. HAILAKANDI ASSAM 9: RAJU DAS S/O LATE RANJIT DAS R/O VILLAGE PALOICHERRA PART II P.O. SULTANICHERRA DIST. HAILAKANDI ASSAM 10: TAHAMIN BAHAR CHOUDHURY ALIAS LASKAR W/O ALI AHMED LASKAR R/O VILLAGE PALOICHERRA PART II P.O. SULTANICHERRA DIST. HAILAKANDI ASSAM 11: SAMSUL HAQUE LASKAR S/O ALI AHMED LASKAR R/O VILLAGE PALOICHERRA PART II P.O. SULTANICHERRA DIST. HAILAKANDI ASSAM 12: NUR NEHAR LASKAR D/O ALI AHMED LASKAR R/O VILLAGE PALOICHERRA PART II P.O. SULTANICHERRA DIST. HAILAKANDI ASSAM 13: NUR JAHAN LASKAR D/O ALI AHMED LASKAR R/O VILLAGE PALOICHERRA PART II P.O. SULTANICHERRA DIST. HAILAKANDI ASSAM 14: MINARA BEGUM LASKAR D/O ALI AHMED LASKAR R/O VILLAGE PALOICHERRA PART II P.O. SULTANICHERRA DIST. HAILAKANDI ASSAM

¶13

Page No.# 3/6

¶14

15: SAJNA BEGUM LASKAR BARBHUYAN D/O ALI AHMED LASKAR R/O VILLAGE PALOICHERRA PART II P.O. SULTANICHERRA DIST. HAILAKANDI ASSAM

¶15

16: MOINUL HOQUE LASKAR S/O ALI AHMED LASKAR R/O VILLAGE PALOICHERRA PART II P.O. SULTANICHERRA DIST. HAILAKANDI ASSAM 17: PIYARA BEGUM LASKAR D/O ALI AHMED LASKAR R/O VILLAGE PALOICHERRA PART II P.O. SULTANICHERRA DIST. HAILAKANDI ASSAM

¶16

18: SUPIYA BEGUM LASKAR D/O ALI AHMED LASKAR R/O VILLAGE PALOICHERRA PART II P.O. SULTANICHERRA DIST. HAILAKANDI ASSA

¶17

VERSUS

¶18

THE UNION OF INDIA AND 3 ORS

¶19

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

¶20

2:THE CHIEF ENGINEER PWD (NH) ASSAM CHANDMARI GUWAHATI - 3

¶21

3:THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER PWD (NH) DIVISION SILCHAR ASSAM

¶22

4:THE DISTRICT COMMISSIONER (D.C.) HAILAKANDI DISTRICT - HAILAKANDI ASSAM PI

¶23

Page No.# 4/6

¶24

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. B RAHMAN,

¶25

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

¶26

BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KARDAK ETE

¶27

ORDER

¶28

Date : 08-06-2026

¶29

Heard Mr. B. Rahman, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. D. Nath, learned Senior Government Advocate for respondent Nos. 2, 3 & 4.

¶30

2. Aggrieved by the non-release of the revised zirat compensation amounting to Rs. 32,85,501/-, awarded in favour of the petitioners by the Arbitrator vide award dated 01.07.2017, the petitioners have instituted the present writ petition, which is the second round of litigation between the parties.

¶31

3. The land of the petitioners was acquired for construction of the Dhaleswari–Bhairabi Bypass on National Highway 154 and for widening of certain stretches of the said National Highway in the district of Hailakandi. While the compensation payable towards the acquired land has already been disbursed, the revised zirat compensation of Rs. 32,85,501/-, as awarded by the Arbitrator on 01.07.2017, has not yet been released.

¶32

4. This Court in earlier round of litigation, being WP(C) No. 6487/2024, by an order dated 06.12.2024, directed the Deputy Commissioner, Hailakandi, to consider the case of the petitioner and if the petitioner is found to be entitled to receive the zirat compensation in terms of the arbitral award dated 01.07.2017 to disburse the same. Alleging non-compliance of the said order, the petitioners thereafter instituted Cont. Cas(C) No. 228/2025. In the said contempt

¶33

Page No.# 5/6

¶34

proceeding, the respondents stated that upon verification, the petitioners were found to be eligible beneficiaries of Village Paloicherra Part-II and entitled to receive the revised zirat compensation amounting to Rs. 32,85,501/-. It was further stated that the District Commissioner, Hailakandi, had already requested the Chief Engineer, PWD (NH), Assam, Chandmari, Guwahati, to take necessary steps for disbursement of the said amount.

¶35

5. Mr. Rahman, learned counsel for the petitioners, submits that despite the order dated 06.12.2024 passed in WP(C) No. 6487/2024 and the subsequent order dated 06.03.2026 passed in Cont. Cas(C) No. 228/2025, the revised zirat compensation amounting to Rs. 32,85,501/- has still not been disbursed to the petitioners.

¶36

6. This Court, having considered the issue, directed Mr. D. Nath, learned Standing Counsel, PWD, to obtain specific instruction.

¶37

7. Today, Mr. Nath, learned Standing Counsel, PWD, by placing the status report, submits that the claim of the petitioners as regards the revised zirat compensation of Rs. 32,85,501/- has already been processed and forwarded to the Government for necessary approval. Therefore, he submits that as and when the revised zirat compensation is approved, same shall be released and disbursed to the petitioners.

¶38

8. Upon consideration, this Court finds that there is no dispute as regard the claim of the petitioners to receive the revised zirat compensation amounting to Rs. 32,85,501/- awarded by the Arbitrator vide award dated 01.07.2017. The respondents appear to have already initiated the requisite process for release of

¶39

Page No.# 6/6

¶40

the said amount and the matter is presently awaiting for approval by government.

¶41

9. In view of above, this Court is of the view that no useful purpose would be served by keeping this writ petition pending and therefore, I deem it appropriate to close this writ petition with a direction to the respondent authorities to complete the process for payment of revised zirat compensation amounting to Rs. 32,85,501/- to the petitioners within a period of 3 (three) months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. It is ordered, accordingly.

¶42

10. Writ petition stands disposed of.

¶43

JUDGE

¶44

Comparing Assistant

Sitaram Kanoo and 17 Ors. v. the Union of India and 3 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sitaram Kanoo and 17 Ors. v. the Union of India and 3 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Iifl Finance Limited Vs the State of Assam and 3 Ors.

Nandini Dutta Vs State of Haryana and 6 Ors.

Sri Uttam Kr Gohain Boruah Vs the State of Assam

Toklima Khatun Vs the State of Assam and 2 Ors.

Smti Bhargabi Bhattacharyya Vs the State of Assam and 16 Ors.

Smti Ivy Dutta Vs the Union of India and 3 Ors.