Gauhati High Court
WP(C)/2869/2025 of SHRI AJIT CHANDRA DUTTA Vs THE UNION OF INDIA AND 7 ORS. on 7 June 2026
GAHC010114092025 2026:GAU-AS:7924 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/2869/2025 SHRI AJIT CHANDRA DUTTA SON OF LATE HAHIRAM DUTTA, RESIDENT OF GOR ALI, RAJABARI, P.O. JORHAT, DISTRICT- JORHAT, ASSAM, PIN-785014 VERSUS THE UNION
GAHC010114092025
2026:GAU-AS:7924
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : WP(C)/2869/2025
SHRI AJIT CHANDRA DUTTA
SON OF LATE HAHIRAM DUTTA, RESIDENT OF GOR ALI, RAJABARI, P.O.
JORHAT, DISTRICT- JORHAT, ASSAM, PIN-785014
VERSUS
THE UNION OF INDIA AND 7 ORS.
REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO THE MINISTRY OF ROAD, TRANSPORT AND HIGHWAYS, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, TRANSPORT
BHAWAN, NO.1 PARLIAMENT STREET, NEW DELHI. PIN110001
2:NATIONAL HIGHWAYS AND INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT
CORPORATION LIMITED (NHIDCL
REPRESENTED BY THE MANAGING DIRECTOR AND HAVING ITS HEAD
OFFICE AT WORLD TRADE CENTRE
NAUROJI NAGAR
DELHI. PIN-110029
3:THE GENERAL MANAGER (PROJECT)
NHIDCL
PMU- JORHAT
OPPOSITE BRAHMAPUTRA ACADEMY
FIRST FLOOR
RAJATIA GAON
MALOW ALI
JORHAT
ASSAM. PIN-785001.
4:THE DISTRICT COMMISSIONER CUM COLLECTOR
JORHAT
OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT COMMISSIONER
JORHAT
DISTRICT-JORHAT
ASSAM. PIN-785001
5:THE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COMMISSIONER (LA)
JORHAT
OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT COMMISSIONER
JORHAT
DISTRICT- JORHAT
PIN-785001
6:THE CIRCLE OFFICER
JORHAT WEST REVENUE CIRCLE
MAHATMA GANDHI ROAD
BABUPATTY
JORHAT
ASSAM
PIN-785001
7:THE DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER
APDCL
JORHAT
BIDYUT BHAWAN
NA ALI
JORHAT
ASSAM. PIN-785001.
8:THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
PWD BUILDING DIVISION
JORHAT
ATILAGAON
JORHAT
ASSAM
PIN-78500
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. M NATH, MAUSAM NATH,MS. D L DEKA,MR. A
BHATTACHARJEE,MR. D J KAPIL
Advocate for the Respondent : DY.S.G.I., SC, PWD,SC, APDCL,GA, ASSAM,SC, NHIDC
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 : 08.06.2026 Heard Mr. M. Nath, learned Senior counsel assisted by Mr. D. J. Kapil, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Ms. M. Barman, learned Government Advocate appearing for the State respondent; Mr. R. Dhar, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the PWD; Ms. R. Borah, learned counsel appearing for the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 as well as Mr. B. Das, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the APDCL.
2. The grievance of the petitioner is that although compensation towards acquisition of the land has already been paid by the National Highways Authority, compensation in respect of the structures standing thereon and the zirat land has not been disbursed. It is the further case of the petitioner that, upon his request, the competent authority carried out an assessment of the value of the structures and zirat land; however, despite such assessment having been completed, no amount has yet been paid to the petitioner on that basis.
3. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of the materials available on record, it appears that the process of determination of compensation has already attained finality and payment has admittedly been made in terms of Section 3H(2) of the National Highways Act, 1956. It further appears that, once such determination has been made, the competent authority ceases to have jurisdiction to entertain any dispute relating to the quantum of compensation. Any such dispute is required to be adjudicated by the
Arbitrator in exercise of powers under Section 3G(5) of the National Highways Act, 1956.
4. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the writ petition may be disposed of by granting liberty to the petitioner to raise the aforesaid grievance before the Arbitrator in accordance with law.
5. The said prayer is not opposed by Ms. M. Barman, learned Government Advocate appearing for the State respondents.
6. In view of the submissions advanced on behalf of the parties and considering the nature of the controversy involved, this writ petition is disposed of by granting liberty to the petitioner to avail the statutory remedy of arbitration under Section 3G(5) of the National Highways Act, 1956, and to raise all permissible claims and contentions before the competent Arbitrator.
7. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the claim. In the event the petitioner approaches the Arbitrator, all questions, including the issue of limitation, shall remain open for consideration and shall be decided in accordance with law.
8. Accordingly, the writ petition stands disposed of.
9. No order as to costs. JUDGE Comparing Assistant