Gauhati High Court
WP(C)/2431/2024 of HANDIQUE AND BARUWA ENTERPRISE PVT. LTD., Vs THE UNION OF INDIA AND 6 ORS. on 22 June 2026
GAHC010121192026 2026:GAU-AS:9217 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) WP(C)/2431/2024 HANDIQUE AND BARUWA ENTERPRISE PVT. LTD. HAVING ITS OFFICE AT HANCHARA GOHAIN GAON SIMALUGURI MOUZA TEOK DIST. JORHAT ASSAM BEING REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR
GAHC010121192026
2026:GAU-AS:9217
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
WP(C)/2431/2024
HANDIQUE AND BARUWA ENTERPRISE PVT. LTD.
HAVING ITS OFFICE AT HANCHARA GOHAIN GAON
SIMALUGURI MOUZA
TEOK
DIST. JORHAT
ASSAM
BEING REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR
SRI KARANJYOTI HANDIQUE
S/O- SR. DHRUBA JYOTI HANDIQUE
R/O- KOTHIALHUNDA GAON
P.O. AND P.S. SAPEKHATI
DIST. SIVASAGAR
ASSAM
VERSUS
THE UNION OF INDIA AND 6 ORS.
REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY OF MINISTRY OF ROAD TRANSPORT
AND HIGHWAYS
NEW DELHI.
2:THE NATIONAL HIGHWAYS AUTHORITY OF INDIA
REP. BY ITS CHAIRMAN HAVING ITS HEADQUARTERS AT SECTOR-10
DWARKA
NEW DELHI-110075
NEW DELHI.
3:THE NATIONAL HIGHWAYS AUTHORITY OF INDIA
REGIONAL OFFICE AT GUWAHATI NRDFI HOUSE
4TH FLOOR
GS ROAD
DISPUR
GHY-06
ASSAM
REP. BY ITS PROJECT DIRECTOR.
4:THE NATIONAL HIGHWAYS AND INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT
CORPORATION (NHIDCL)
PTI BUILDING 4
PARLIAMENT STREET
SAMAD MARG AREA
NEW DELHI-110001.
5:THE DISTRICT COMMISSIONER
JORHAT
DIST. JORHAT
PIN- 785001.
6:THE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COMMISSIONER/ BRANCH OFFICER
(LAND ACQUISITION BRANCH)
JORHAT DISTRICT- JORHAT
PIN- 7800
ASSAM (COMPETENT AUTHORITY UNDER THE NATIONAL HIGHWAYS ACT
1956).
7:THE CIRCLE OFFICER
TEOK REVENUE CIRCLE
TEAOK
ASSAM
PIN- 785001.
------------
Advocate for the applicant(s): Mr. B Sharma Advocate for the respondent(s): Mr. RK Talukdar, Standing Counsel NHIDC
Mr. J Handique
for respondent Nos.5 to 7
Page No.# 3/4
B E F O R E
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEVASHIS BARUAH
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
1
Decisions referred to
In this index
1
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
23.06.2026
Heard Mr. B Sharma, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner. Also heard Mr. RK Talukdar, the learned counsel who appears on behalf of respondent No.4 and Mr. J Handique, the learned counsel, who appears on behalf of the respondent Nos.5, 6 and 7.
2. The petitioner herein is aggrieved by the action on the part of the respondent authorities in not including the value of the loss sustained by the petitioner to the factory building as well as the attached machineries on account of the acquisition of the land in the Award so passed by the Competent Authority for Land Acquisition under Section 3G(1) of the National Highways Act, 1956 (for short, ‘the Act of 1956’).
3. Section 3G(5) of the Act of 1956 makes it abundantly clear that if a person aggrieved is dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation, the person aggrieved has to file an application seeking reference to Arbitrator to decide the inadequacy of the quantum of compensation.
4. It is also well settled by the Supreme Court in the case of National Highways Authority of India Vs. Sri P. Nagaraju @ Cheluvaiah & Anr. reported in (2022) 15 SCC 1, that while assessing the compensation, the Competent Authority for Land Acquisition as well as the Arbitrator has to take note of the provisions of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, more particularly,
Sections 26 to 30 of the said Act of 2013, read with Section 3G(7) of the Act of 1956.
5. Taking into account the above, as the petitioners’ grievance lies on the question of inadequacy of the compensation and the petitioner has an adequate and efficacious remedy under Section 3G(5) of the Act of 1956, it would not be proper on the part of this Court to exercise the extraordinary jurisdiction in the facts of the instant case. 6. Accordingly, the instant petition stands disposed of with the following observations and directions:
(i) . This Court is not inclined to entertain the instant writ petition.
(ii) . Liberty granted to the petitioner to file an application under Section 3G(5) of the National Highway Act, 1956 and if such application is filed, the Arbitrator shall duly consider such application in the light of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of National Highways Authority of India (supra).
JUDGE Comparing Assistant