Gauhati High Court
WP(C)/6705/2024 of FAZAR ALI Vs THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 5 ORS. on 15 September 2026
GAHC010262582024 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/6705/2024 FAZAR ALI D/O FAZAR ALI, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE CHAMATA PATHAR, PS SONAPUR, PO CHAMATA, DIST KAMRUP M ASSAM 782402 VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 5 ORS.
GAHC010262582024
undefined
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : WP(C)/6705/2024
FAZAR ALI
D/O FAZAR ALI, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE CHAMATA PATHAR, PS SONAPUR, PO CHAMATA, DIST KAMRUP M ASSAM 782402
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 5 ORS.
REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT.
OF ASSAM, REVENUE AND DM(LR) DEPARTMENT, DISPUR GUWAHATI 06
2:THE JOINT SECRETARY
TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM
REVENUE AND DM(LR) DEPARTMENT
DISPUR GUWAHATI 781006
3:THE DISTRICT COMMISSIONER
KAMRUP (M) GUWAHATI 36
4:THE CIRCLE OFFICER
SONAPUR REVENUE CIRCLE
DIST. KAMRUP M ASSAM 782402
5:THE CHIEF GENERAL MANAGER (PP AND D)
ASSAM ELECTRICITY GRID CORPORATION LTD. BIJULI BHAWAN
GUWAHATI 781001
6:THE ASSISTANT GENERAL MANAGER
132 KV EHV GRID SUBSTATION
ASSAM ELECTRICITY GRID CORPORATION LTD. KAHILIPARA GUWAHATI
78101
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR T H HAZARIKA, MR M CHETIA,MR A RASHID,MR. K
ISLAM,MR. D ROY
Advocate for the Respondent : GA, ASSAM, GA, ASSAM,SC, AEGCL
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KAUSHIK GOSWAMI
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORDER
Date : 16.09.2026 Heard Mr. M. Chetia, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Also heard Ms. M. Barman, learned Government Advocate appearing for the State respondent.
2. The grievance in this writ petition is inadequate compensation for land acquisition. It appears on the last occasion, i.e., 29.07.2026, when the matter was called, Ms. M. Barman, learned Government Advocate for the State respondent has placed before this Court the award statement, which is kept on record and marked as ‘X’.
3. It appears from the aforesaid award statement that the name of the petitioner finds place at Serial No. 7 thereof. It is, therefore, apparent that the first relief sought for in the writ petition stands redressed.
4. This Court, on 29.07.2026, having noted that the first relief sought for by the petitioner stood redressed, queried the learned counsel for the petitioner as to whether the petitioner had received the compensation awarded. At that stage, learned counsel for the petitioner sought time.
5. Today, when the matter is taken up, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the compensation awarded has not yet been received by the petitioner. He further submits that the compensation so awarded is inadequate and has not been determined in accordance with Sections 26 to 30 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act of 2013”).
6. Learned Government Advocate appearing for the State respondents further informs the Court, on instructions received by her office, that notice has already been issued to the petitioner calling upon him to receive the compensation. However, the petitioner is yet to approach the concerned authority with the requisite documents for receiving the said compensation.
7. The petitioner is, accordingly, at liberty, if so advised, to approach the concerned authority and receive the compensation upon furnishing the requisite documents in accordance with law.
8. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and having noted that compensation has already been awarded in favour of the petitioner, this Court is of the view that the question of adequacy of the compensation cannot be gone into in exercise of writ jurisdiction, particularly in view of Section 12 of the Assam Land (Requisition and Acquisition) Act, 1964, read with Section 64 of the Act of 2013, which provides for a remedy of reference in respect of the determination of compensation.
9. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner does not object to the aforesaid view and seeks permission to withdraw the present writ petition, with liberty to avail the remedy available to the petitioner under Section 64 of the Act of 2013.
10. In view of the above, the writ petition stands dismissed as withdrawn, with the liberty as prayed for. JUDGE Comparing Assistant