High Court · 2012

The petitioners, whose lands have admittedly been acquired under the Nat ional Highways Act, 1956 (for short, hereinafter referred to as ’the Act’) for w idening of the four-lane National Highway No. 31 at Rangia, are before this Cour t being aggrieved by the denial of an opportunity to them as contemplated under Section 3-G(3) of the Act for inviting claims from all persons interested therei n to facilitate the computation of the amount of compensation to be granted. We have heard Mr. A Sarma, learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. DK Saikia, learned Central Govt. counsel appearing for the National Highway Authori ty of India (also referred to as ’NHAI’) and Mr. PS Deka, learned Govt. Advocat e representing the State of Assam and its functionaries as impleaded in the inst ant proceeding. According to the petitioners, pursuant to the Notifications dated 21.11. 2005, 01.01.2009 and 29.7.2009 issued under the Act, their lands were acquired a nd, eventually, notices under Section 3-E dated 25.8.2011 and 10.10.2011 were a lso served on them requiring them to deliver possession of their respective plot s and to collect the compensation. The petitioners have averred that they being simple villagers uninformed of the intricacies of the law and the procedure rece ived the compensation unilaterally computed by the concerned State authority, si gned the indemnity bond produced before them and handed over the possession of t he lands so acquired. Having come to know subsequently that they had a right und er Section 3-G to register their claims for the purpose of quantifying the appro priate amount of compensation for their lands, they have approached this Court f or redress. According to the petitioners, the respondents not having followed th e mandatory prescriptions of Section 3-G of the Act, the whole process is vitiat ed by an incurable illegality. The Addl. Deputy Commissioner (Rev.), Kamrup, Amingaon (Respondent No.3) in his affidavit while affirming that all steps as contemplated by the Act have been taken for acquisition of the lands involved, has admitted that notice unde r Section 3-G of the Act is envisaged by the enactment for the purpose of determ ination of the amount payable as compensation. According to the answering respon dent, though such notice had not been issued, the petitioners, if not satisfied with the amount of compensation worked out by the competent authority under the Act, may file application(s) to that effect and that the same can be determined by the arbitrator to be appointed by the Central Government under sub-Section (5 ) of Section 3-G of the Act. That meanwhile the amount of compensation already c omputed had been disbursed to the petitioners has been mentioned. The respondent Nos. 5 and 6 in their separate counter have, in essence, laid the responsibility with regard, amongst others, to computation and payment of compensation on the competent authority of the Land Acquisition, Kamrup (R) ( ’CALA’, for short). According to these respondents, if any affected person is no t satisfied with the compensation awarded, he may approach the CALA, Kamrup (R) in writing. This pleaded stand of the respondent Nos. 5 and 6, according to us, concurs with the one offered by the respondent No.3. Whereas Mr. Sarma has reiterated that the petitioners are entitled to ha ve adequate amount of compensation determined by the arbitrator as contemplated by Section 3-G(5) of the Act, the learned counsel for the respondents have stood by the pleaded stand of the respondent Nos. 3,5 and 6 as above. Upon hearing the learned counsel for the parties and on a consideration of the pleaded facts and the documents on record, we are of the view that the pe titioners are entitled to an opportunity of offering their claim for computation of the amount of compensation as contemplated by Section 3-G(5) of the Act. The pleadings of the respondents per se demonstrate that though required, no notice under Section 3-G had been issued before finalizing the amount of compensation by the CALA, Kamrup (R). In this view of the matter, in our unhesitant opinion, no plea of estopp el can be taken to debar the petitioners from making their claims as conceived o f in Section 3-G(3) of the Act for having received meanwhile some amount of comp ensation on that count. This conclusion is also in the face of the contention of the respondent No.3 in particular that the petitioners, if not satisfied with t he sum awarded to them by way of compensation, can still file application for co mputation thereof by the arbitrator as visualized in Section 3-G(5) of the Act. In the above conspectus of facts and law, we dispose of this petition wi th the following directions:- i) If so advised, the petitioners would file an appropriate application/ re presentation/ objection before the Additional Deputy Commissioner (Revenue), Kam rup who, if, is the CALA, Kamrup (R) would deal with it as required under Sectio n 3-G(5) of the Act and cause necessary steps to be taken for the process to be effectuated expeditiously. ii) If the Additional Deputy Commissioner (Revenue), Kamrup is not the CALA, Kamrup (R), he would cause the application/ representation/ objection to be sub mitted by the petitioners to be placed before such authority who, in turn, would do the needful as directed in sub-para (i) above. The Union of India/ NHAI would take immediate steps as contemplated in S iii) ection 3-G(5) of the Act. iv) The learned Arbitrator would ascertain as well the correctness or otherw ise of the pleaded stand of the respondent No. 3, the Addl. Deputy Commissioner, Kamrup, the Land Acquisition Branch that vis-a-vis the petitioner No. 5 i.e. Al tafuddin Ahmed, S/o. Late Azimuddin Ahmed, the area of his land measuring .016 h ectare had been released from the process of acquisition and a cheque to him had been issued only for his land measuring .015 hectare. This, is as we perceive a n inter-relation between the claim for amount of compensation of this petitioner and this factual aspect. Needless to say, the arbitrator to whom the issue would be referred, would notif y and hear the persons interested and pass appropriate orders vis-à-vis the peti tioners’ claim for compensation of the land acquired the Act. The whole process would be completed within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order. No costs.