Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 1812 (GAU)

Archana Das, W/o Atul Das v. State Of Assam

2024-12-18

DEVASHIS BARUAH

body2024
ORDER : Heard Mr. K Bhattacharjee, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner. Mr. BK Singh, the learned counsel appears on behalf of the respondent Nos.4 and 5 and Mr. N Goswami, the learned Government Advocate, Assam appears on behalf of the District Administration. 2. The petitioner herein has approached this Court seeking a writ in the nature of mandamus for settling the claim of the petitioner by paying adequate compensation in respect to a land ad measuring 1 katha 17 lechas covered by dag number 1693 of Patta No.331 in village Changchari Mouza Sila Senduri Ghopa under Uttar Guwahati Revenue Circle in the district of Kamrup (Rural), Assam. 3. From the materials on record, it is seen that acquisition proceedings were initiated in the year 2015, whereby land ad measuring 202 bighas 0 katha 8.5 lechas was acquired and handed over to the Food Corporation of India (for short, FCI). It is the case of the petitioner that the land of the petitioner ad measuring 2 Kathas 0 lechas covered by Dag No. 1693 of Patta No. 331 was also included in the area. However, it is the specific case of the petitioner that the remaining land of 1 katha 17 lechas covered by Dag No.1693 of patta No. 331 was not acquired and there was no compensation so paid. It is under such circumstances, the petitioner had approached this Court alleging violation of his rights under Article 300A of the Constitution. 4. Pursuant to issuance of notice, various pleadings have been filed. From the various pleadings, it is clear that a plot of land of 1 katha 10 lechas covered by Dag No. 1693 of patta No. 331 belonging to the petitioner is in possession of the respondent Nos. 4 and 5. The materials on record categorically show that the said land of 1 Katha 10 lechas was taken away by the District Administration and handed over to the FCI in violation of the mandate of Article 300A of the Constitution. It is also seen from the various orders being passed by this Court from time to time that due opportunity was given to the FCI, either for going for outright purchase or acquired the land as per the mandate of law. 5. It is also seen from the various orders being passed by this Court from time to time that due opportunity was given to the FCI, either for going for outright purchase or acquired the land as per the mandate of law. 5. It is further seen from an affidavit filed on 25.11.2024 that the respondent FCI wants to purchase the land of the petitioner at the price of Rs.7,50,000/- in terms with the valuation report mentioned in the communication dated 19.09.2024 to the respondent Nos.4 and 5 by the Additional District Commissioner, Kamrup, Amingaon. 6. Mr. K Bhattacharjee, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, however, submitted that the value of the land is far more. He further submitted that either the respondent Nos.4 and 5 have to acquire the land as per the provisions of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (for short, ‘the act of 2013) or has to go for an outright purchase at the rate which is mutually agreeable between the petitioner and the respondent Nos.4 and 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that if the acquisition is carried out in respect to the land, taking into account the provisions of Sections 26 to 30 of the Act of 2013, the petitioner would be entitled to an amount far more than Rs.7,50,000/-, inasmuch as, the provisions of Sections 26 to 30 categorically show that such acquisition if carried out would require payment of a 100% solatium and also in terms with Section 26(2) of the Act of 2013, the applicable multiplication factor would be (2) which has to be applied as per the Notification issued by the State Government. 7. On the other hand, Mr. B.K. Singh, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the FCI had categorically stated that the FCI is only willing to purchase at the rate of Rs.7,50,000/-. 8. Taking into account the above, it is, therefore, seen that respondents Nos.4 and 5 are not agreeable to purchase at the rate mutually agreed between the petitioner as well as the respondent Nos.4 and 5, nor are they agreeable to make payment of compensation in terms with the provisions of the Act of 2013, if the State is to acquire the land. Under such circumstances, the fact that the respondent Nos.4 and 5 are in possession of land ad measuring 1 katha 10 lechas covered by Dag No. 1693 of patta No. 331, the retention of such land by the respondent No.4, which is a State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution, amounts to an infraction to Article 300A of the Constitution. 9. This Court, therefore, disposes of the instant writ petition with the following observation(s) and direction(s): (i) The District Commissioner, Kamrup(Rural) at Amingaon is directed to forthwith within 15 days from the date a certified copy of the instant order is served upon him, demarcate the land ad measuring 1 katha 10 lechas covered by Dag No. 1693 of patta No. 331 of village Changchari Mouza Sila Senduri Ghopa under Uttar Guwahati Revenue Circle in the district of Kamrup (Rural), Assam and hand over the possession of the said land to the petitioner. (ii). The District Commissioner, Kamrup (Rural) at Amingaon is further directed either by himself or upon delegation to assess the rental amount for the period from the date the land in question i.e. 1 katha 10 lechas covered by Dag No. 1693 of patta No. 331 in village Changchari Mouza Sila Senduri Ghopa under Uttar Guwahati Revenue Circle in the district of Kamrup (Rural), Assam was handed over to the respondent No.4 to the date when possession is handed over back to the petitioner and upon such determination being made, the same be sent to the respondent Nos.4 and 5 for due payment. The respondent Nos.4 and 5 upon receipt of the said determination shall make the due payment to the petitioner. 10. In terms of the above, the writ petition stands disposed of.