THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM v. THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 4 ORS
Case at a glance
- Decided
- 24 Jun 2022
- Bench
- SUMAN SHYAM
Outcome
Disposed of
With the above observation, this writ petition stands disposed of
Provisions considered
Judgment
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. M P CHOUDHURY Advocate for the Respondent : SC, K A A C BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUMAN SHYAM Date : 24-06-2022 ORDER Heard Mr. M.P. Choudhury, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. J. Chutia, learned standing counsel, Karbi Anglong Autonomous Council (KAAC) appearing on behalf of respondent Nos. 2 to 4, Mr. S. Baruah, learned Govt. Advocate, Assam appearing on behalf of respondent No. 1 and Mr. R.K. Talukdar, learned standing counsel, NHIDCL appearing on behalf of respondent No. 5. From the averments made in the writ petition, it appears that the Karbi Anglong District Authorities are in the process of acquiring large plots of land for construction of National Highways. Accordingly, land measuring 20 Bighas belonging to the petitioner covered by Dag No. 415 of Patta No. 81 situated under Block-4 of village- Mohendijua, Mouza- Borjan No. 3 is also under the process of acquisition.
A notification under Section 3A of the National Page No.# 3/4 Highway Act, 1956 has already been issued. According to the writ petitioner, in the original site map, prepared by the authorities, his land was also included. However, the site map has been altered subsequently. Mr. Choudhury submits that the respondent authorities are in fact proposing to acquire the land of the petitioner measuring about 20 bighas which is covered by Dag No. 415 of Patta No. 81. However, subsequently, the aforesaid Dag number has been replaced by four unknown Dags i.e. Dag Nos. 698, 694, 695, and 696. Although the petitioner has submitted representation before the authorities ventilating his grievance in the matter, yet, no action has been taken till today. Mr. Choudhury, therefore, submits that unless the site map is corrected, the petitioner may be deprived of his right to receive fair compensation payable under the law.
Operative part
Responding to the above, Mr. Chutia, learned standing counsel, KAAC submits that if the only grievance of the petitioner is pertaining to exclusion of correct Dag numbers pertaining to his land, this writ petition can be disposed of by directing the authorities to look into his grievance and take remedial measure. In view of the above and as agreed to by the parties, this writ petition is being disposed of at the stage of motion hearing by granting 02 weeks time to the petitioner to submit a detail representation, along with a certified copy of this order, before the respondent No. 3 ventilating his grievance in the matter. Is such a representation is submitted within the time period provided by this Court, the same be looked into and be disposed of by a speaking order after carrying out proper spot verification and upon due consultation of the relevant revenue records, within a further period Page No.# 4/4 of 06 weeks. Until the above exercise is completed, no payment shall be made in respect of the plot of land claimed by the writ petitioner. With the above observation, this writ petition stands disposed of. JUDGE GS Comparing Assistant
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: With the above observation, this writ petition stands disposed of
Which court decided this case, and when?
Gauhati High Court, on 24 Jun 2022. The bench was SUMAN SHYAM.
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.