VoxJuris
Home › High Courts › Gauhati High Court 2023 › High Court of Gauhati

Chandan Deb v. The State of Assam and 5 Ors

Disposed Of
Court
High Court of Gauhati
Decided
1 September 2023
Bench
Devashis Baruahauthor
Case no.
WP(C) 5060/2023

Judgment

ORDER Date : 01.09.2023 The instant writ petition has been filed by the Petitioner seeking a direction upon the Respondents not to evict the Petitioner from the land underDag No. 363of Village Agia Pt.II (Ulupara), Revenue Circle, Balijana and also not to demolish the A.T. House, boundary wall, mandir and standing trees situated 80 ft away from Ajia Pt.II (Ulupara) four lane of N.H. 17 of Pakage-7.

¶2Taking into account the issue involved herein, the instant writ petition is taken up for disposal at the motion stage itself.

¶3From a perusal of the materials on record, it transpires that the Petitioner is in occupation of a plot of land measuring 4 bighas 2 kathas 8 lechas covered by Dag No. 363 of Village AgiaPt.II (Ulupara), Revenue Circle, Balijana in the District of Goalpara. There being no document produced that the Petitioner is the owner of the land. It has been alleged in the petition that in respect to the said land under occupation of the Petitioner, no acquisition proceedings under the appropriate provisions of law have been initiated. The basis of the said allegation is that the Petitioner had not been served any notice. The Petitioner had also filed a petition dated 6.5.2023 before the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Revenue praying to grant compensation for the land, house, Page No.# 3/4 mandiretc inasmuch as similarly situated other persons have been granted compensation for similar land. The Petitioner apprehends that he may be evicted from the land and the structures constructed thereupon would be demolished for which the Petitioner is before this Court.

¶4I have heard the learned counsels for the parties.

¶5From a perusal of the materials on record as nothing could be shown that the Petitioner is the owner of land, the question of granting compensation in respect to the land does not arise. However, if there are certain structures standing thereupon, the Petitioner becomes a "person interested" for which he would be entitled to compensation in respect to the said structures.

¶6This Court further finds it relevant to take note of that for the purpose of acquisition of the land under National Highways Act, 1956 the provisions of Sections 3A and 3D are required to be followed meaning thereby that the land wherein the Petitioner is in occupation has to be included in the Notification issued under Sections 3A and 3D of National Highways Act, 1956. It is also relevant to take note of that in terms with Section 3D of The National Highways Act, 1956 upon issuance of the said Notification, the land vest upon the competent authority so that the same could be transferred to the National Highway Authority of India.

¶7Accordingly, this Court therefore disposes of the instant writ petition thereby directing the Respondent Authorities to verify as to whether the land wherein the Petitioner is in occupation has been included in the Notification issued under Sections 3A and 3D of National Highways Act, 1956. If the said land has been included in the Notifications issued under Sections 3A and 3D of Page No.# 4/4 National Highways Act, 1956 then the Respondent Authorities would be at liberty to evict the Petitioner from the said land. This Court further observes that the Petitioner would be entitled to zirat compensation, if there are any structures constructed by the Petitioner on the said land or standing crops belonging to the Petitioner.

¶8With the above observations and directions, the instant writ petition stands disposed of.

JUDGE Comparing Assistant

Case details

Parties and counsel

PageoNo.#o1/4 GAHC010193132023 ooooooo ooooooooooooooo ooooooooooooooooTHEoGAUHATIoHIGHoCOURTo (HIGHoCOURToOFoASSAM,oNAGALAND,oMIZORAMoANDoARUNACHALoPRADESH)o CaseoNo.o:oWP(C)/5060/2023o CHANDANoDEBo S/O.oBHUPENDRAoDEB.oVILL-oAGIAoPT.IIo(ULUPARA)oP.S-oAGIA,oDISTo-o GOALPARAoPINo-o783120 VERSUSo THEoSTATEoOFoASSAMoANDo5oORSo REPRESENTEDoBYoTHEoSECRETARYoTOoTHEoGOVT.oOFoASSAM,oDEPTT.oOFo LANDoREVENUEoETC,oDISPUR,oGUWAHATIo-o781006 2:THEoDEPUTYoCOMMISSIOMER oGOALPARA o(CALA)oPINo-o783101. 3:THEoDISTRICToDEVELOPMENToCOMMISSIONERoANDoCALA oGOALPARAoPINo-o783101 4:THEoCIRCLEoOFFICER oP.O-oBALIJANAoP.S-oAGIAoDIST-oGOALPARAoPINo-o783120 5:THEoUNIONoOFoINDIA oREPRESENTEDoBYoTHEoSECRETARY oGOVT.oOFoINDIAoDEPTT.oOFoNHAI oDELHI.o11 6:THEoDEPUTYoGENERALoMANAGERo(P)oNHIDCL oPMU oBONGAIGAON oASSAM oPINo-o783385o For1the1Petitioner1(s)11111111111111111111:1Mr.1A.Roshid.1Advocate.1 Page No.# 2/4 For the Respondent (s) : Mr. C. Baruah, Advocate, NHAI : Mr. S. Baruah, Government Advocate : Mr. A. Bhattacharjee, SC, Revenue BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVASHIS BARUAH

Source: High Court of Gauhati, through the eCourts High Court services, via the Indian High Court Judgments open dataset by Dattam Labs (CC BY 4.0). Text was extracted from the official PDF and may contain conversion errors. Check the official PDF before relying on it.