Mr. R. Nama v. Issue rule asking

: Mr. R. Nama, Advocate. Mr. D. Sarma, Addl. G.A. HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE (ACTING) _O_ R_ D_ E_ R_ 05/12/2022 Heard Mr. R. Nama, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. B. Majumder, learned Deputy SGI and Mr. D. Sarma, learned Addl. G.A. appearing for the respondents. The petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs: i. Issue rule asking the respondents to show cause as to why the respondents No.2 should not be directed to make a fresh requisition and to make a fresh survey of the land possession of which was actually taken over for construction of IBB road within periphery of Birampur Mouza and then initiate proceeding for acquisition under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 for payment of due compensation to the land owner. ii. After hearing the parties and being satisfied make the rule in terms of (i) absolute. iii.

Issue rule asking the respondents to show cause as to why the respondent No.2 and 4 shall not be directed to conduct a joint survey to determine the actual measurement of land belonging to the land holders of Birampur Mouza was taken over for the construction of IBB road within the periphery of Birampur mouza. iv. Issue rule asking the respondents to show cause as to why the respondent No.4 should not be directed to make a fresh notification of acquisition mentioning the extent of land actually acquired, possessed and utilized for construction of said IBB road in Birampur Mouza. v. Issue rule asking the respondents to show cause as to why the respondent No.2 should not be directed to furnish a fresh requisition confirming the acquisition made by them for construction of IBB road in Birampur mouza. vi. After hearing the parties and being satisfied make the rule in terms of (ii) (iii) (iv) and (v) above absolute.” The case of the petitioner is that he is one of the many land holders in Birampur mouza of Sepahijala District at present, whose lands were taken by the respondents for construction of IBB road under Section-4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.

The process of acquisition suddenly stopped after hearing under Section-9 of the LA Act, 1894 and before passing any award under Section-11. Thus, under the provision of 11A of the Act, the acquisition proceeding lapses by operation of law. Subsequently, the said acquisition proceedings were withdrawn by a notification dated 22nd February, 2005 under Section-48 of the LA Act,

1894. But facts remain that border road has already been constructed by taking over possession of the land belonging to the various persons including the petitioner. But till now, no response has been redressed to the notices issued by the co-petitioners; he has been compelled to approach before this Court demanding the compensation under new Act of 2013. In view of above averments made in this petition, this Court is of the view that the dispute in question may be resolved if the petitioner approaches to the respondent No.2 by filing a representation along with all relevant documents. As such, the petitioner is directed to approach before the respondent No.2 and represent the matter along with all documentary evidence in respect of his claim for compensation for the land that has been affected, according to the petitioner. And the respondents are also directed that after receipt of such representation shall consider the matter and pass a reasoned order in accordance with law within a period of two months from the date of receipt of such representation. With the above directions, the present writ petition stands