Gauhati High Court
WP(C)/2665/2023 of HAJARAT ALI Vs THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 5 ORS. on 21 June 2026
GAHC010101562023 2026:GAU-AS:9207 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/2665/2023 HAJARAT ALI S/O- LATE DANES ALI @ DANES SK., VILL. 2 NO. JAMBARI, P.O. JAMBARI, P.S. BOKO, DIST. KAMRUP, ASSAM, PIN- 781141. VERSUS THE STATE OF
GAHC010101562023
2026:GAU-AS:9207
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : WP(C)/2665/2023
HAJARAT ALI
S/O- LATE DANES ALI @ DANES SK., VILL. 2 NO. JAMBARI, P.O. JAMBARI, P.S. BOKO, DIST. KAMRUP, ASSAM, PIN- 781141.
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 5 ORS.
REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT.
OF ASSAM, REVENUE (R AND R) DISASTER MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT, DISPUR, GUWAHATI-6.
2:THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
KAMRUP
AMINGAON
ASSAM
PIN- 781031.
3:THE ADDITIONAL DEPUTY COMMISSIONER AND LAND ACQUISITION
OFFICER
KAMRUP
ASSAM
PIN- 781301.
4:THE CIRCLE OFFICER
CHHAYGAON REVENUE CIRCLE
CHHAYGAON
ASSAM
PIN- 781124.
5:THE MANAGING DIRECTOR
ASSAM INDUSTRIAL INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION
(AIIDC)
INDUSTRIAL ESTATE
BAMUNIMAIDAM
GHY-21.
6:REKAT ALI
S/O- LATE DANES ALI @ DANES SK.
VILL. 2 NO. JAMBARI
P.O. JAMBARI
P.S. BOKO
DIST. KAMRUP
ASSAM
PIN- 781141
For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. H. R. Ahmed, Advocate For the Respondent(s) : Mr. N. Goswami, Govt. Advocate Ms. G. Hazarika, Sc, Revenue
BEFORE
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEVASHIS BARUAH
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.
O R D E R
22.06.2026
Heard Mr. H. R. Ahmed, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner. Ms. G. Hazarika, the learned counsel appears on behalf of the Revenue Department and Mr. N. Goswami, the learned counsel appears on behalf of the Respondent Nos.2 to 4. None appears on behalf of the Respondent Nos.5 & 6.
2. The Petitioner herein who is the son of Late Danes Ali @ Danes Sk is aggrieved by the action on the part of the Respondent
Authorities, more particularly, the Respondent Nos.2, 3 and 4 for not taking steps for referring the dispute pertaining to the apportionment of compensation to the Court and rather, the Respondent Nos.2, 3 and 4 have taken a decision on their own which is outside their jurisdiction.
3. Mr. H. R. Ahmed, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner submitted that the acquisition was carried out in terms with the Assam Land (Requisition and Acquisition) Act, 1964 (for short, “the Act of 1964”) and a reading of Section 12 of the said Act of 1964 would show that the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 have been legislatively incorporated. The learned counsel for the Petitioner submitted that when there is a dispute as regards the apportionment and/or entitlement of the compensation, the Authorities, i.e. the Respondent Nos.2, 3 and 4 could not have decided the same. It has to be only decided by the Court. This aspect would be apparent from the reading of Section 18 and Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, read with Section 12 of the Act of 1964.
4. This Court has duly taken note of the affidavit which has been filed by the Respondent Nos.2, 3 and 4 and also the Speaking Order dated 11.11.2022 wherein the Respondent No.3 justified why the payment was made only in favour of the Respondent No.6. It is the opinion of this Court that the said action on the part of the
Respondent Nos.2, 3 and 4 is without jurisdiction and authority. The said Authorities, more particularly the Respondent Nos.3 & 4 have transgressed into the realm of the Authority with the jurisdiction to decide the said aspect, and as such, their decision to award the compensation only to the Respondent No.6 and make payment of the entire compensation to the Respondent No.6 is in violation to the provisions of Section 12 of the Act of 1964, read with Sections 30 and 31 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.
5. It is well settled that when there is a dispute as regards apportionment and/or the entitlement, even without a request being made for reference, it is obligatory on the part of the Authorities to make a reference and the amount ought to have been deposited before the Reference Court wherein the reference is made.
6. Under such circumstances, it is therefore the opinion of this Court that the impugned action on the part of the Respondent Authorities is required to be interfered with and further directions are also required to be passed.
7. Accordingly, the writ petition stands disposed of with the following observations and directions:-
(i) The Respondent No.2 is directed to make a reference to the Court of the learned District Judge, Kamrup (Amingaon) forthwith and not later than 30 days from the date a certified copy of the instant order is served upon the Respondent No.2 for determination as regards the entitlement and/or the apportionment of the said amount of compensation.
(ii) The learned District Judge, Kamrup (Amingaon) shall upon receipt of the said reference, take appropriate steps for deciding the reference as regards the entitlement or apportionment of the compensation.
(iii) The Respondent Nos.2, 3 and 4 are further directed to take effective steps against the Respondent No.6 in terms with the documents so submitted by the Respondent No.6 while releasing the amount to the Respondent No.6 for recovery of the said amount and thereupon deposit the same before the learned Reference Court.
(iv) The entitlement or the apportionment of the amount of compensation shall be dependent upon the decision of the learned Reference Court.
(iv) The aforementioned directions so passed be complied with by the Respondent Nos.2, 3 and 4 upon submission of a certified copy of the present order to the Respondent No.2.
JUDGE Comparing Assistant