THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM v. THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 6 ORS

7:SRI BIPEN DAS S/O LATE KANAK DAS VILLAGE AND PO PATACHARKUCHI WARD NO. 1 DIST BARPETA ASSAM 78132 Advocate for the Petitioner : MS. S B CHOUDHURY Advocate for the Respondent : GA, ASSAM BEFORE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K. SEMA Date : 21-03-2022 ORDER Heard Ms. S. B. Choudhury, learned counsel for the writ appellant. Also heard Mr. B. Choudhury, learned Standing counsel, PWD, appearing for respondent nos. 1 and 2 as well as Ms. M. Bhattacharjee, learned Additional Senior Government Advocate, Assam, appearing for respondent nos. 3, 4 and 5. This writ appeal has been filed by the appellant (respondent. No. 7 in the writ petition), who is aggrieved by the order dated 17.11.2021 passed by the learned Single Judge in WP(C) 1481/2019, by which the learned Single Judge has Page No.# 3/4 directed the present appellant to pay an amount of Rs. 9,03,900/- as compensation to the writ petitioner, which had already been determined by the competent authority. The writ petition was filed by the petitioner who claimed to be the absolute owner and in possession of a plot of land bearing Patta No. 504 in Village Patacharkuchi in the district of Barpeta, Assam. The petitioner’s claim was that on the said plot of land he had constructed an Assam Type house which was damaged by the respondent nos. 6 and 7, more particularly, respondent no. 7 (present writ appellant), who was doing construction work of widening the National Highway. A complaint regarding the damage caused to the house of the writ petitioner was submitted by the writ petitioner to respondent nos. 6 and 7. Thereafter, the matter was considered by the competent authority and an amount of Rs. 9,03,900/- was determined as compensation to be paid to the writ petitioner by the respondent no. 7 (present appellant). In spite of the amount so determined by the competent authority, compensation was not paid and the writ petitioner was constrained to file the writ petition. The writ petition was allowed by the learned Single Judge with the following observations: “7. In the light of the above discussion, it is found that the petitioner is entitled to be compensated for the damage caused to his house due to execution of the contract-work by the respondent no. 7 on behalf of the respondent no. 6, which has already been assessed at Rs. 9,03,900/-, as reflected in the joint verification report dated 26.12.2017. Considering the stand taken by the respondent no. 6 and the consultant of the contract-work, with reference to the terms and conditions of the contract agreement for the contract-work, it is the respondent no. 7 who is liable to pay the said compensation for the damage caused to the house of the petitioner. The respondent no. 7 is found to have not disputed the above stands taken by the respondent no. 6 and the consultant of the contract-work. It is accordingly directed that the respondent no. 7 shall pay the amount of Rs. 9,03,900/- as compensation to the petitioner within a period of 1 [one] month from the date of submission of a certified copy of this order by the petitioner at the office of the respondent no. 6 who, in turn, shall transmit the same to the respondent no. 7 for compliance. It is further observed that in the event of non-payment of the amount within the stipulated time-period, the amount shall carry interest @ 6% per annum from today till the date of payment.” We have absolutely no occasion to defer with the findings of the learned Single Judge. The writ appeal has absolutely no merit and, accordingly, the same is dismissed. Page No.# 4/4 JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE Comparing Assistant