High Court · 2009

Considering the issue involved and reliefs sought for in these two writ 2. petitions, the writ petitions are taken up together for final disposal at the mo tion stage with the consent of the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the pa rties.

3. The brief facts of the cases in a nutshell is summarized herein below: The petitioners herein have challenged the Notification bearing No. RLA 70/2005/47 dated 30.6.2008 made in respect of the Land Acquisition Case No. 5 of 2007 published in the Assam Gazette Extra-Ordinary issue dated 8.7.2008 whereby and whereunder publication of preliminary notification as required under Sectio n 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (as amended) (for short ’the Act’) was iss ued whereof lands in Dag Nos. 942, 943, 946, 948, 950, 981, 983, 984 and 1778 of KP Patta No. 394 of village-Dharapur under Ramcharani Mouza, District- Kamrup c irculating that the lands mentioned therein is needed for public purpose viz. fo r construction of Eco-Tourism Project. Thereafter, as required under the law, he aring of objections as contemplated under section 5-A of the Act was fixed and c ompleted on 19.11.2008. The petitioners herein have failed to object to the afor esaid notification proposed for acquisition of land as published under Section 4 of the Act though they have interest on the land acquired for public purpose an d hence, challenge has been made to the notification dated 30.6.2008 in L.A. Cas e No. 5 of 2007 seeking a direction to the Respondents to allow them to file obj ections in respect of land in Dag No. 943 KP Patta No. 394 of village-Dharapur, Mouza- Ramcharani in the district of Kamrup, Assam.

3. The claim of the petitioners rests on two sale deeds executed by the ven dor M/s Transparent Creations Pvt. Ltd., owners being Dilip Chandra Barua, Anit Barua and three others in their favour vide sale deed No. 4695/2007 and sale dee d No.13486/2006 dated 3.4.2007 and 4.12.2006 respectively in respect of Dag No. 943, possession whereof were handed over to them and at present they are in phys ical possession of their respective land to which L.A. Case No. 5 of 2007 has be en initiated along with other Dags mentioned hereinabove. Their names, in fact, have not yet been brought on record in the records of rights as disclosed in the pleadings. Therefore, no notice except in WP (C) No. 1618 of 2009 was served in regard to proposed acquisition of land as published under Section 4 of the Act and thus, objection as required under Section 5-A of the Act could not be filed as pleaded in WP(C) No.923/2009. However, the petitioner in WP(C) No.1618/2009, could not file objection in due time as asked for, he being away from Guwahati. A conjoint reading of sections 4 and 5-A of the Act would show that afte 4. r the publication of preliminary notification, objections are required to be fil ed to the Collector within thirty days from the date of publication of the notif ication. In the instant case, hearing of objections under Section 5(A) was over on 19.11.2008 and the same were forwarded to the government on 11.12.2008 for ne cessary action as disclosed in the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the state Re spondents and in fact, Section 4 of the Act has been complied with and notices w ere issued to all the Pattadars and since the name of the petitioner in WP(C) No .923/2009 was not mutated, the notice was issued to Sri Dilip Chandra Barua and Sri Anit Barua, owner of M/s Transparent Creation Pvt. Ltd. as averred by the st ate Respondents and declaration that the land is required for pubic purpose is y et to be notified as required under Section 6 of the Act.

5. The facts pleaded and established would go to show that the interest of the petitioners have not yet been jeopardized in regard to preliminary Notificat ion, even if they have failed to file objections as provided under Section 5-A o f the Act. The declaration of intended acquisition has yet to be made and after declaration, Collector is to make order for acquisition as contemplated under Se ctions 6 and 7 of the Act. Thereafter, as per Section 8 of the Act, the collecto r is to mark out the land measured and planned.

6. Subsequent thereto the Collector would issue notice to persons intereste d whereupon the petitioners have remedy to agitate the matter as provided under Section 9 of the Act. The notice so issued would give them an opportunity being the occupier of the land of the proposed acquisition. The Collector, thereafter, may require any such person to make or deliver to him at a time and place menti oned a statement containing so far as practicable the name of every such person interested in the land to appear personally or by agent and to state their natur e of interests in the acquisition proceedings. The enquiry would be made into th e objections to a notice given under Section 9 to the measurements made under Se ction 8 of the Act and into the value of the land at the date of publication of the notification under Section 4 sub-section (1) of the Act and into the respect ive interests of the persons claiming the compensation and thereafter, the Colle ctor shall make an award under his hand as provided under Section 11 of the Act.

7. Therefore, though the petitioners could not file their respective object ions as contemplated under Section 5-A of the Act, they will get ample opportuni ties to claim compensation, if at all proposed land is acquired for public purpo ses and if situation demands after land are marked out by the Collector and noti ces are issued under Section 9 of the Act, they may ventilate their grievances t o the appropriate authority for compensation and an award would be made in accor dance with law.

8. In view of the above position, this Court does not deem it fit to entert ain the writ petitions and accordingly, the writ petitions are disposed of with the direction as indicated hereinabove. The parties are left to bear their own c osts.