WP(C)/4134/2025 of AMZAD HUSSAIN MAZARBHUIYA Vs THE UNION OF INDIA AND 8 ORS on 8 September 2026

ORDER

09.09.2026 Heard Mr. A. Y. Choudhury, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard the learned counsel for respondent No. 2, Ms. Barman, learned counsel for respondent Nos. 4 & 5, and Mr. S. B. Laskar, learned counsel for respondent Nos. 7-8.

2. The prayers made in the writ petition were for directions to the respondents not to disburse or release the compensation amount in respect of land covered by the dag nos. 437, 438, 440, 441, 421 and Patta No. 108 of Village Matijuri, Mouza, Matijuri District, Hailakandi, to any third party without hearing the petitioner or verifying the ownership record, to set aside and quash any decision and order, if already taken, to disburse the compensation to a third party without proper verification or notice to the petitioner, and direct the respondents to allow and hear the petitioner along with production of relevant records, relating to his ownership of the aforesiad land to ascertain his ownership.

3. Mr. A. Y. Choudhury, learned counsel for the petitioner, has drawn the attention of this Court to a petition filed before the District Commissioner (L & L) Branch, Hailakandi, where he has raised a grievance against the payment of money to the respondent Nos. 7 & 8 in this writ petition.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner also has a reasonable apprehension that the money will be disbursed by the authority, and that the money related to the acquisition of the land will be disbursed to the respondent Nos. 7 & 8 without fairly hearing the petitioner regarding his claim to apportionment of the compensation.

5. An affidavit in opposition has been filed by the Additional Chief Secretary to the Government of Assam in the Department of Revenue, whereby it has been stated that due to the pendency of Misc Case Number 4/2024 pending before the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division)-I cum JMFC Hailakandi, the Department was not in a position to take appropriate decision regarding the complaint given by the petitioner.

6. The learned counsel for the Department of Revenue, Mr. Barpujari, has submitted that the land was procured under the Government of Assam Notification No. RLA.177/2021/3 dated 07.03.2022 relating to Land Acquisition through Direct Purchase by way of Negotiated Settlement for infrastructure projects including the Asom Mala Project. The executing agency of the Asom Mala Project in the present case is the Public Works Department (Roads), Government of Assam, and payment is released only after an agreement is executed by the person recognized as the land owner/interested person in accordance with the prescribed procedure. Accordingly, the procurement was carried out strictly in terms of the Government Notification governing Direct Purchase by Negotiated Settlement and not under the National Highways Act, 1956.

7. The learned counsel for the revenue department has thereafter submitted that even under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, the disputes regarding the entitlement or apportionment of compensation cannot be decided by the Collector and have to be referred to the appropriate authority, which authority has been declared to be the Court of the District & Sessions Judge of the Districts in Assam, by a notification dated 27.06.2024 issued by the Governor.

8. Accordingly, he submits that the prayers in the present writ petition can be agitated before the appropriate authority by filing an appropriate application before the District Collector, who, as per the provisions of Section 76, is required to forward the disputes to the appropriate authority which has already been named hereinabove.

9. The learned counsel for the petitioner has fairly submitted that, given an opportunity, he would raise his grievances before the District Collector, Hailakandi, by filing an appropriate application along with copies of all the documents that he would like to rely upon and the case of the petitioner in this writ petition would be sufficiently answered if the Collector forwards the same to the appropriate authority in accordance with law. He has further prayed that before coming to a decision, the appropriate authority may give the petitioner a fair opportunity of hearing.

10. This Court has noticed that the respondent Nos. 7 & 8 also claim a portion of the compensation with regard to the acquisition of the aforesaid land.

11. In such view, this Court is of the considered opinion that this writ petition can be closed by giving liberty to the petitioner to approach the appropriate authority by filing an application before the Collector, within a period of 15 days from today, by including all relevant documents and evidence that he may like to rely upon to claim apportionment of the land.

12. The respondent Nos. 7 & 8 would also be entitled to file their complaints regarding the apportionment before the Collector within a period of 15 days from today.

13. On receipt of the complaints, the Collector shall forward the complaints to the appropriate authority in a consolidated manner for appropriate adjudication.

14. It is needless to say that both the petitioner and the respondent Nos. 7 & 8 would be allowed to place their case before the appropriate authority in accordance with law.

15. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. No cost. JUDGE Comparing Assistant