J.M.Srivastava, J.— This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is for Mandamus for payment of compensation with due interest for occupation of land since 1977 and for acquisition of the land in accor­dance with the procedure in law. 2. The petitioner's case was that 3 bigha 2 katha 2 lechas of land covered by Dag No. 57, situated within Barpathar area of Karbi Anglong District was part of more or less II00 acres of land known as "Jadavrai Special Grant". The petitioner was entrusted to manage the properties including the Jadavrai Special Grant. A good number of people lived in the land of the aforesaid grant and the petitioner had been required to provide amenities including construction of road, to the people. There was originally no road connecting Bokajan Railway Station and Bokajan Police Station. For the convenience of the people a road was constructed on the land comprising Jadavrai Grant belonging to the owners of Jadavrai Grant connecting Bokajan Police Station and Bakajan Railway Station. In or about 1977, to facilitate movements of vehicles, etc. on account of establishment of Cement Corpora­tion of India, without any authority of law possession of the road belonging to the petitioner connecting Bokajan Railway Station and Bokajan Police Station, had been taken over by the respondents. No proceeding of acquisition had been taken, nor any notice was issued and no compensation had been paid. The action on the part of the respondents was absolutely highhanded and the occupation of the land was entirely unauthorised and without any sanction of law. There was correspondence as enumerated in the petition between the respondent and the petitioner but nothing fruitful having materialised, the petitioner came to this Court 3. The action on the part of the respondents was absolutely highhanded and the occupation of the land was entirely unauthorised and without any sanction of law. There was correspondence as enumerated in the petition between the respondent and the petitioner but nothing fruitful having materialised, the petitioner came to this Court 3. Sri B.K. Das learned counsel appearing for the petitioner had sub­mitted that the resuondents, i.e Public Works Department, Government of Assam and the Karbi Anglong District Council, Diphu in their correspon­dence had accepted that the aforesaid road connection - Bokajan Police Station to Bokajan Railway Station, had been taken over by the PWD, Government of Assam, and accordingly it should be deemed that the respon­dent Government had requisitinned the land of the road under the Assam Land (Requisition and Acquisition) Act, 1964, hereinafter referred as the 'Act and since despite repeated correspondence, nothing had been paid to the petitioner, rent for the period of occupation of the land, as claimed by the petitioner should be allowed and a further direction that the land should be acquired by the respondents be made. 4. Sri B.D. Das, learned counsel appearing for the Karbi Anglong District Council, has submitted that the District Council had nothing to do with the matter and was not liable for any claim. 4. Sri B.D. Das, learned counsel appearing for the Karbi Anglong District Council, has submitted that the District Council had nothing to do with the matter and was not liable for any claim. 5 The respondent Government has not filed any affidavit-in-opposition but Sri B.P. Kataky, learned Government Advocate, has submitted that in the correspondence which the petitioner had with the PWD authorities, while the officers of the PWD at the district level had due to misappre­hension stated that the road had been taken over, the Additional Chief Engineer of the department as far back as in 1982 had made it clear to the petitioner, as was clear from correspondence filed by the petitioner himself; that what the PWD had done in 1977 was just to improve the road that had been in existence and use and that there was no take over of the land of the road, as has been submitted for the petitioner; that without proper notifications under the Act, there could be no requisition of the land and that once no such action had been taken, it could not be accepted that the Government of Assam had requisitioned the land; that the petitioner's case was clearly of encroachment for which appropriate remedy by was of civil suit could have been pursued; that in this petition, therefore, reliefs prays for, could not be allowed. 6. We have considered the respective submissions for the parties, and materials on record. 7. The admitted facts are that the Jadavrai Special Grant comprises of large area of land in which people also lived, the petitioner had for the convenience of the people living in the area constructed the road connecting Bokajan Police Station and Bokajan Railway Station. In the year 1977, the PWD authorities had widened the .read and the area of land so covered in widening of the road was 3B 2K 2L (in respect of which in this petition claim for rent, etc. from the respondents has been made1). The aforesaid original road was being used by the people living in the Jadavrai Special Grant, i.e. that it was a private road which was used by the people in the Jadavrai Special Grant and possibly by others also. No action as required under section 3 of the Act had been taken. from the respondents has been made1). The aforesaid original road was being used by the people living in the Jadavrai Special Grant, i.e. that it was a private road which was used by the people in the Jadavrai Special Grant and possibly by others also. No action as required under section 3 of the Act had been taken. In the revenue records, it appears the entire land of Jadavrai Special Grant continues to be as before, i.e. that the area of land in Jadavrai Special Grant of the petitioner has not been reduced or curtailed. 8. 'From the documents, copies of which have been filed, it does appear that at District level there was some impression that the road belonged to the Karbi Anglong District Council and the Executive Engineer PWD concerned had also stated that the road had been taken over. On consideration of the materials placed before us we are, however, satisfied that the above statement was due to misapprehension of the realities on the ground for there is nothing on record to show that the area of the land of the road was over shown on the records of PWD as a public road or as belonging to the Government. Besides, the Additional Chief Engineer had on 26tn March 1982 (Annexure 9) with reference to the petitioner's letter dated 27.5.81 (Annexure 4) clearly stated that the PWD had taken up only improvement work and that the District Council authority had not handed over the land to the department, which clearly bears out the contention of Sri B.P.Kataky learned Government Advocate that the respondent Government had in 1977 only improved the road and that it had not taken its possession. In this view of the matter, appearing from the said letter it is not quite material that the respondent Government had not filed any affidavit-in-opposition. 9. Annexure 1 is the letter dated 20.7.79 which was written by the Assistant Revenue Officer, Karbi Anglong District Council, Diphu to the Secretary i/c Revenue, Karbi Anglong District Council on the subject of road leading to Bokajan Rail Road Station, which referred to a trace copy of the man showing the road under reference. It stated that the said road fell withn Jadav Rai Special Grant standing in favour of the owners. The road was in Das No. 57 with an area of 3 B 2L. It stated that the said road fell withn Jadav Rai Special Grant standing in favour of the owners. The road was in Das No. 57 with an area of 3 B 2L. Annexure 2 was petitioner's letter dated 7.12.79 to the Executive Engineer which enclosed a bill for rent for the road. Annexure 3 was the reply dated 17.4.80 to Annexure 2 stating that the matter should be taken up with another Executive Engineer. Annexure 4 was the letter dated May 27, 1981 from the petitioner to the Additional Chief Engineer, wherein reference was made to the petitioner's letter referred earlier and the prayer was made for payment of rent. The claim for rent was calculated at Rs.5,250/-per year and Rs. 21,000/-was claimed for four years. Annexure 5 was the letter dated October 1, 1981 from the petitioner to the Executive Engineer, PWD reiterating the claim for rent. Annexure 6 was the letter from the Sub-Divisional Officer to the Executive Engineer, PWD which stated that the road passing over private land, on enquiry, was gathered to be a District Council road. Annexure 7 was the letter dated 31st October, 1981 from the Executive Engineer to the Superintending Engineer which stated that the road was originally a District Council road and was taken over by the PWD for improvement in 1975-76 under the Minimum Need Programmed Scheme, and also stated that the entire area of the land was about 6.78 bigha;, but the petitioner had claimed rent for the extra area covered by the road, excluding the portion which was under the District Council road. The clearly bears out the confusion among the said officers in regard to the ownership of the road which undoubtedly was a private road of the petitioner in Jadav Rai Special Grant. Annexure 8 dated 11th December, 1981 was another letter from the Executive Engineer to the petitioner which also stated that the PWD had taken over the road for improvement from the District Council. Annexure 9, already referred earlier was letter dated 26th March, 1982 from the Additional Chief Engineer to the petitioner which clearly stated that the PWD had taken up only improvement work. Annexure 9, already referred earlier was letter dated 26th March, 1982 from the Additional Chief Engineer to the petitioner which clearly stated that the PWD had taken up only improvement work. Annexure 10 was the petitioner's letter dated 8.3.83 to the Additional Chief Engineer, in which claim for payment of rent to regularise the illegal action of the department in encroaching and occupying the petitioner's private land was made in reiteration of the letter dated 27.5.81 referred earlier. Annexure 10 was the bill from the petitioner in which the total claim for six years was made for Rs. 61,020/-. Annexure 11 dated October 25, 1983 was letter from the petitioner to the Secretary to the Government of Assam, PWD, re-stating the above facts, and Annexure 12 was the notice dated 4.3.85 by the petitioner's counsel to the Government, in which it was clearly stated that for the benefit of the people living inside the grant, the petitioner had constructed and maintained private road within the grant, leading from the Bokajan Police Station to the Bokajan Rail Road Station, and further that on or about 1977, the PWD encroached upon the said private road widening the same making it eight metre wide and blac -topped it. This must have been done for the benefit of Cement Corporation of India, a public Limited Company. The high handed action violated the relevant provisions of the Constitution of India and it was nothing but a "pure and simple case of encroachment". 10. On careful consideration of the above materials, we are unable to accept the petitioner's contention that the respondent Government had taken over possession of the road or the land. What appears to have happened was the Bokajan Police Station to Bokajan Railway Station road had already been in existence from before and had been in use by the people of the area, and in the year 1975-76 or 1977 the PWD had improved the road black-topped it and in the process widened the road as has been stated by the petitioner, but it would not, in our opinion, be correct to say that the PWD had taken over the road and had divested the petitioner of ownership of the land as such. The area of Jadavrai Special Grant has not been curtailed or reduced, and there was nothing on record to show that the road in question was in the record of the PWD as road belonging to the Government. On the materials placed before us, therefore, we are unable to accept that the respondent Government had taken possession of the road and had divested the petitioner of ownership of the land which as a matter of fact could not be done except in accordance with law under the Act or under the land Acquisition Act, 1894. 11. Sri B. K. Das, learned counsel for the petitioner, has strenuously urged that the respondents had admitted that the government has taken possession of the road, and having thus deprived the petitioner of his right over the land, the respondents must pay rent in accordance with the provisions of the Act. Section 3 of the Act reads as under : "3. Power to requisition - (1) If in the opinion of the State Government or any person authorised in this behalf by the State Government it is necessary so to do, for maintaining supplies and services essential to the life of the community or for providing proper facilities for accommodation, transport, communication, irrigation, flood control and anti-erosion measures including embankment and drainage or for providing land individually or in groups to landless, flood affected or displaced persons, or to society registered under the Assam Co-operative Societies Act. 1949, or a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956, formed for the benefit and rehabilit­ation of landless, flood affected or displaced persons or to provide land for the purpose of construction of border fencing and allied works including border roads and check posts connected therewith along Bangladesh border the State Government or the person so authorised, as the case may be, may, by order in writing, requisition any land and may make such further orders as appear to it or to him to be necessary or expedient in connection with the requisitioning : Provided that no land used for the purpose of religious worship shall be requisitioned under this section : Provided further that where it is necessary to provide the land to landless or displaced persons such land shall not be requisitioned unless the person interested in the land has been given an opportunity of making representation against it within such time and in such manner as may be prescribed in this behalf. (2) An order under sub-section (l) shall be served in the prescribed manner on the owner of the land and where the order relates (o land in occupation of a tenant, also on such tenant. (3) When the order for requisition is made by any authority other then the State Government, any person interested in the land, within 30 days from the date of service of the order, may appeal to the State Government and the decision of the State Government in such appeal shall be final." Section 6 provides for payment of rent. It is, however, clear that unless action under section 3 has been taken, the question of payment of rent under section 6 would not arise. In our opinion, therefore, the petitioner's conten­tion is not sound. It is, however, clear that unless action under section 3 has been taken, the question of payment of rent under section 6 would not arise. In our opinion, therefore, the petitioner's conten­tion is not sound. (The provisions in law for requisition or acquisition of property are mandatory and require to be complied with before it can be said that requisition or acquisition of property has been made by the government for a public parpese, for the obvious reason that without action as provided in law, it shall not be reasonable in law to accept that any change in ownership or the like of the property has come into existence, i.e. that the owner of the property cannot be divested or deprived or deemed to have been divested or deprived of his rights over the property unless action as provided by law has been taken. We are, therefore, unable to accept the contention for the petitioner that it should be deemed there has been requisition of the property. It may be obvious that acceptance of such submission would lead to extremely dangerous proposition in law, for once if it was accepted, that the government could be deemed to have requisitioned or acquired some property without recourse to the specific provisions for taking action for requisition and acquisition of land, there could be no limit to such claims and counter claims which may lead to extremely chaotic situation in tint regard. It shall, therefore, not be reasonable to accept that the government could be deemed to have requisitioned the property without recourse to the requisite provisions of law. We accordingly hold that the petitioners contention in that regard not being sound, cannot be accepted. 12. Considering that the respondent Government has not taken over the road even though the road might be in use by the public, as indeed it was in use even earlier by the people living in the Grant, it should not be considered that the government having improved the road and in the process having widened it, have requisitioned the land. Considering that the respondent Government has not taken over the road even though the road might be in use by the public, as indeed it was in use even earlier by the people living in the Grant, it should not be considered that the government having improved the road and in the process having widened it, have requisitioned the land. It may also be noted that the petitioner has not made claim for the land of the original road and has made claim for the area of land stated to have been encroached upon in widening the road, and in this view of the matter it is not reasonably possible to accept the claim of the petitioner that while the original road continues to be with the petitioner for which he has not made any claim, the petitioner is entitled to make claim for excess area included in the road, i.e. 3 B 2K 2L, stated to have been occupied. We, therefore, for this reason also are unable to accept the petitioner's contention for grant of any relief as prayed in this petition. 13. Sri B.P. Kataky, learned Government Advocate, has submitted that the respondent government has no other interest except in improving and widening the road possibly because it was used by the public. 14. Sri B. K.. das, learned counsel for the petitioner, has cited Abdur Rahnan Mia vs. State of Asaam, (1984) 1 GLR 151 , and has referred to Article 390 A of the Constitution of India, to contend that the petitioner had been deprived of his land and valuable property and the respondent government must make payment of adequate compensation. Abdur Rahman (supra) is not, in our opinion, attracted in the present case because therein the agricultu­ral lands of the petitioners had been occupied for public purpose and the res­pondent government was directed to take necessary action for proper requisi­tion or acquisition of land,, whereas in the present case there was already a road in use by the public or at least the people of the area, and the government had only improved the road and in the process widened it. It cannot, therefore, be said that the government had occupied the land of the petitioner. The instant case, therefore, the government has not deprived the petitioner of any land for use for any other purpose. It cannot, therefore, be said that the government had occupied the land of the petitioner. The instant case, therefore, the government has not deprived the petitioner of any land for use for any other purpose. The respondent government for the same reason is also not considered as having violated the provisions of Article 300 A of the Constitution of India. 15. For the aforesaid reasons, this petition fails and is dismissed. No costs.