✦ Gauhati High Court

No. 1 of 2001 · Gauhati High Court

No. 1 of 2001B K SHARMA2 min read

Case at a glance

Provisions considered

Judgment

It appears that the petitioner No.1 had earlier approached this Court by filing WP' No. 5031/2002 which was disposed of on 13.08.02 with some observa tions granting liberty to the petitioner to file representation before the autho rity concerned. Pursuant to the said order, the petitioner had filed representat ion on 16.08.02. Thereafter, the impugned notification having been issued, the p etitioners filed the instant writ petition. In the counter affidavit filed by the respondent No. 4, it has been stat ed that the objections of the petitioners and others were heard and disposed of vide order dated 6.03.02 and eventually the declaration dated 9.07.02 under sect ion 6 of the Land Acquisition Act was issued. Challenging the said declaration d ated 9.07.02, the petitioner No.1 filed the WP'No. 5031/02, which was also dispo sed of vide order dated 13.08.02 providing for filing appropriate representation before the appropriate authority. In PIL No. 6/02 the possibility of having an alternative site for construction the bus terminus was explored by the authoriti es but the same having not been materialized, land in question was sought to be acquired through the notification and declaration dated 8.12.05 under Section 4 of the LA Act. It has been stated that when the petitioners were put to the noti ce, out of the 10 Bighas of land allotted to the petitioner No.1, some part has been sold out and the land remaining was 6 bighas 1 Katha only under the said Da g and Patta over which the petitioners have no possession whatsoever. In a normal circumstance, the Writ Court in exercising power under judic ial review under article 226 of the Constitution of India, do not interfere with the land acquisition matters. Highlighting the said principle, Ms B. Sarma, lea rned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent No. 4 submits that the writ p etition is a mis-conceived one. Considering the matter in its entirety, I don’t find merit in the writ p etition, and the same is accordingly dismissed.

Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case

No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.

This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.

Why is this linked?

This is the original judgment text, reproduced from the public court record. Always verify it against the official record before relying on it in a filing — check it on Gauhati High Court or eCourts case status (search case no. No. 1 of 2001). ← Search more judgments