High Court · 2012

02. We have heard Mr. B.D. Konwar, learned counsel for the petition er, Ms. V.L. Singh, learned Standing Counsel, Revenue Department, Govt. of Assam and Mr. C. Baruah, learned Standing Counsel National Highway Authority of India (hereinafter for short referred to as the NHAI/Authority).

03. The petitioner is before this Court with the version that he al ong with his elder brother Sri Pranab Kumar Goswami had been in possession of a plot of land measuring 4 lessas covered by Dag No.649 of K.P. Patta No.65 of vil lage- Patacharkuchi, Mouza - Pub Bajali under Bajali Revenue Circle in the distr ict of Barpeta as owners thereof, duly paying the land revenue without any defa ult. According to him, he was running his grocery business from the land by con structing houses thereon. The National Highway Authority of India had acquired an area of 1 lessa therefrom for the purpose of constructing National Highway No .36, for which an amount of Rs.99,000/- was paid to him and his family members. In this regard, the Circle Officer, Bajali Revenue Circle by notice No.BJC/3/0 5 dated 03.07.2010 required him and his aforenamed brother to relinquish their p ossession in respect of the said area of land measuring 1 lessa. The petitioner has alleged that it was thereafter that on 29.01.2011 at about 2.30 P.M., the o fficials of the Circle Office, Bajali Revenue Circle accompanied by the personne l of NHAI/Authority appeared at the site and asked him to vacate his house along with his belongings within 15 minutes therefrom. According to the petitioner, no prior notice had been served on him or his other family members in this regar d and though he pleaded with the officials about acquisition of only one lessa o f his land, they did not pay heed thereto and instead demolished his house on th e land measuring 4 lessas and took possession of the entire area. That during h is forceful eviction, he did sustain injuries has been pleaded as well. Being a ggrieved, though he submitted a representation on 01.02.2011 before the Circle O fficer, Bajali Revenue Circle seeking adequate compensation for demolishing of h is house standing on his land, which had not been acquired, the same remained un heeded.

04. The Respondent No.2, the Deputy Commissioner, Barpeta in his aff idavit affirmed by the SDO(S), Barpeta admitted that as per the land records ava ilable in the office of the Circle Officer, Bajali Revenue Circle, the petitione r and his brother Sri Pranab Kumar Goswami and Sri Kanu Das were the joint patta dars of an area of 9 lessas covered by Dag No.649 of K.P. Patta No.65 of Village - Patacharkuchi, Mouza - Pub Bajali under Bajali Revenue Circle. According to the answering respondent, as per the alignment finalized for 4 lanning of the Na tional High Way - 39, an area of 1 lessa of Dag No.649 of K.P. Patta No.65 was a cquired therefrom, leaving a running stretch of 75 ft. measured from the central line thereof. This respondent further pleaded on solemn affirmation that accor dingly, an amount of Rs.99,100/- was paid to the petitioner and his family for acquiring this 1 lessa of land along with the existing house thereon, which he r eceived without any objection. On payment of such compensation, the notice date d 03.07.2010 was issued by the Circle Officer, Bajali Revenue Circle requiring t he petitioner to vacate the acquired land and to hand over the possession thereo f to the NHAI. The answering respondent however asserted that as the petitione r in spite of the notice dated 03.07.2010 did not vacate the acquired land on 29 .01.2011, the same was handed over to the NHAI by dismantling the shop standing thereon. Submission of the representation dated 01.02.2011 by the petitioner ha s been admitted by this respondent, on which it has been stated that a report ha d been obtained from the Circle Officer, Bajali Revenue Circle vide communicatio n No.BJC/120/2010-11/4018 dated 18.04.2011.

05. In its counter, the NHAI has pleaded that as per the decision of the Central Government, the project of widening a total length of 670 kms. of t he National Highway involved, known as East-West Corridor Project was undertake n and to administer it Project Implementing Units were set up. Contending that the land for the Right of Way was required to be acquired under the provision of the National Highways Act, 1956 (for short hereinafter referred to as the Act), the authority with reference to the records of such acquisition has affirmed th at an area of 1 lessa only from Dag No.649 and K.P. Patta No.65 of village Patac harkuchi Revenue Circle, Sub-Division and district - Barpeta had been acquired f or the project. According to this answering respondent, in conducting the proce ss of acquisition, the provisions of the Act had been strictly complied with and that no objection at any point of time had been received from the petitioner in response to the notifications issued in connection therewith. 06 This Court on noticing the mutually irreconcilable pleaded orien tations, by order dated 13.08.2012, ordered the Deputy Commissioner, Barpeta to cause a joint inspection/survey of land covered by Dag No.649 of K.P. Patta No.6 5 of village - Patacharkuchi, Mouza- Pub Bajali Revenue Circle with due notice to the petitioner or his authorized representative as the case may be. Accordingly, such joint inspection/’survey was conducted on 01.0 9.2012 in presence of the petitioner and a report of the findings was laid with this Court. The report revealed that 3 lessas of land out of 9 lessas covered b y Dag No. 649 and included in Periodic Patta No.65 was located within the Right of Way(s) of 75 ft. measured from the central line of the existing carriage way, standing in the name of petitioner and two other pattadars and that said area h ad been left out of the acquisition proposals and only 1 lessa of land of the sa id Dag had been acquired and compensation therefor as well as for the structure thereon had already been paid to him (petitioner). The petitioner in his affidavit filed thereafter refuted the cor 07. rectness of these findings. He asserted on the basis of photographs (photo copi es whereof had been annexed thereto) that in the acquistion proceeding, the resp ondents, in fact had taken possession of the entire 4 lessas of land by demolish ing his structures thereon. He thus, reiterated the imputation that he had been illegally dispossessed of additional 3 lessas of land by razing his shop thereo n and was thus entitled to the compensation therefor.

08. Whereas, Mr. Konwar has emphatically argued that it would be ap parent on the face of the records that the respondents, in fact had dispossessed the petitioner of an area of land measuring 4 lessas by demolishing his shop ho use standing thereon and that the turn around by them to limit the area acquired to any other 1 lessa on the plea of excluding the Right of Way is wholly frivol ous lacking in bona fide, the learned counsel for the respondents in unison has affirmed their pleaded stand. In course of the arguments, Mr. P.S. Deka, learn ed Addl. Sr. Advocate, Assam, also produced the parawise comments of the Respond ent No.2 on the additional affidavit filed by the petitioner countering the repo rt reiterating the findings recorded in the joint inspection/survey of the land involved.

09. We have considered the pleaded facts, the documents on record as well as the competing arguments. Having regard to the disputed questions of fa cts emanating from the pleadings as referred to hereinabove, a joint inspection/ survey of the land had been ordered pursuant, to which the Addl. Deputy Commissi oner-cum-Competent Authority under the Act, the Circle Officer, Bajali Revenue Circle, NHAI officials admittedly in presence of the petitioner conducted the sa id exercise, which disclosed as per the report submitted that a area measuring 1 lessa only out of 4 lessas held by the petitioner and his brother Sri Pranab K umar Goswami had been acquired in connection with the project and the remaining 3 lessas because of its location within 75 ft. from the central line of the exis ting carriage way of NHAI - 31 was not acquired. Admittedly, the compensation f or acquisition of the 1 lessas of and with the house thereon amounting to Rs.99, 100/- had been paid to him, the receipt whereof, he has acknowledged in the wri t petition. According to the respondents, the petitioner had been paid an amoun t of sum of Rs.99,100/- for the acquisition of 1 lessa of land and the shop hous e thereon.

10. Apart from want of overwhelming materials on record, warranting outright rejection of the findings contained in the report drawn up on the basis of a joint inspection/survey of the land conducted by a highly placed official dignitary of the district administration in presence of a posse of responsible officials of the Revenue Department and the NHAI, there is no unimpeachable proo f as well of any deliberate act/intention of the respondents to wrongly deny the petitioner the compensation payable to him for any land in addition to the area of 1 lessa acquired as well as for the structures thereon, on irrelevant or co llateral considerations. The photo copies of the photographs annexed to his add itional affidavit disputing the correctness of the findings in the report of the joint inspection/survey per se without further details of the site the date(s) thereof etc, in our view are not sufficient to sustain the remonstrance of any f oul play to deprive him any compensation for the additional 3 lessas of land and the shop thereon. In the exercise of the writ jurisdiction of this Court, in t he attendant conspectus of facts and the materials on record, the petitioner’s c ontentions do not commend for acceptance. The petition lacks in merit and is dismissed. No costs.