JUDGMENT : KARDAK ETE, J. Heard Mr. R. Hussain, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. B. Chakraborty, learned CGC appearing for respondent Nos.1 and 3 to 6, Mr. D. Mazumdar, learned Addl. Advocate General, Assam and Mr. J. Chutia, learned standing counsel for the Karbi Anglong Autonomous Council (KAAC). 2. By filing this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the impugned decision dated 15.11.2024, taken by the Committee constituted for reassessing the rent of the land under the occupation of the CRPF, belonging to the petitioner, whereby the Committee has fixed the rent at Rs.15,893/- (Rupees fifteen thousand eight hundred ninety three) only, from the date of settlement i.e. 06.04.2002, with annual increment of 10% per annum to offset the increase in market price/inflation. Essentially the petitioner is aggrieved with the quantum on the ground that the rent fixed as above by the Committee is in a lower side, which is not proportionate with the fair rent. 3. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner purchased a plywood factory M/s. Wood Craft Products Limited, situated at Dilajee, Diphu, Karbi Anglong, consisting of 59 bighas 4 kathas 5 lechas of land together with several factory sheds, residential and non-residential building, several structures of different natures standing thereon (hereinafter referred to as ‘the factory premises’) through a deed of agreement for sale dated 06.04.2002. Subsequently the land was transferred from the name of erstwhile M/s. Wood Craft Products Ltd., to the present petitioner by order dated 21.8.2013, bearing No.DTC/Tax/Private Holding/2006-07/9/130 passed by the Chairman, Diphu Town Committee. 4. It is the further case of the petitioner that due to prevailing law and order problem in the area, the Respondent No.7 i.e. the Deputy Commissioner, Karbi Anglong at Diphu, directed the erstwhile M/s. Wood Crafts Product Limited to th provide accommodation in its closed factory site, to the 13 Bn. of the CRPF, vide Memo/order No.KGC.194/2000-2001/120(A), dated 07.09.2000. Accordingly, M/s. Wood Craft Products Limited, on principle agreed for th accommodation to the said 13 Bn. CRPF, as directed by the Respondent No.7 and also agreed not to charge anything against the accommodation keeping in mind that the same is a temporary arrangement for a short period by its letter No.DHP/6/153/2000-2001 dated 08.09.2000. Accordingly, M/s. Wood Craft Products Limited, on principle agreed for th accommodation to the said 13 Bn. CRPF, as directed by the Respondent No.7 and also agreed not to charge anything against the accommodation keeping in mind that the same is a temporary arrangement for a short period by its letter No.DHP/6/153/2000-2001 dated 08.09.2000. However, the petitioner being the owner of the premises cannot be stopped from claiming just fair rent and electricity bill relating to consumption of electricity bill by the respondents from the date of occupation of the premises by them, which the petitioner is otherwise entitled to get under the law. 5. Accordingly, on 25.09.2000 the respondent No.7 accorded permission to Respondent No.4 for occupation of the factory premises by them by order No.KGC-194/PT-11/2000/135 dated 25.09.2000 and the resultantly, CRPF personnel occupied the factory premises in the month of September, 2000 and were continuing to occupy the same till May, 2002. Thereafter, the said 13th Bn. CRPF was replaced by another 97 Bn. CRPF and they occupied the same upto 15.03.2005 and again they were replaced by another battalion namely 121 Bn. CRPF and since then the CRPF has been occupying the factory premises till date. 6. It is contended on behalf of the petitioner that in the meantime the Respondent No.6 i.e. the Commandant of 121 CRPF Battalion, issued a certificate dated 28.11.2006 wherein details of the occupation of the factory premises comprising of about 21 bighas land is mentioned. Thereafter on 15.06.2006, the petitioner submitted a representation to the Respondent No.4 and stated the entire facts of the case and requested him to make the payment of outstanding electricity bills and for payment of fair rent. 7. The petitioner submitted letters to the Respondent No.7 for payment of electricity bills including 19.05.2005, 23.07.2005, 7.8.2005, 20.11.2005, 29.11.2005, 12.12.2005 and 08.03.2006. But despite repeated requests and reminders, the respondents neither paid the electricity bills nor paid any rent for the premises occupied by them till that date. 8. Aggrieved by the inaction, the petitioner filed Writ Petition (C) No.578/2007 and by the order dated 05.02.2007, dismissed the writ petition. But despite repeated requests and reminders, the respondents neither paid the electricity bills nor paid any rent for the premises occupied by them till that date. 8. Aggrieved by the inaction, the petitioner filed Writ Petition (C) No.578/2007 and by the order dated 05.02.2007, dismissed the writ petition. Being aggrieved by the said order dated 05.02.2007 passed in W.P.(C) No.578/2007, preferred an appeal being Writ Appeal No.77/2007, the Division Bench, which was disposed of on 26.02.2007 and inter alia, reversed the order dated 05.02.2007 and directed the petitioner to prefer a representation before the Deputy Commissioner, Karbi Anglong within the period of one month and further directed the Deputy Commissioner to examine the matter and assess the reasonable compensation/rent, in accordance with the provision of law and take appropriate steps for payment of the aforesaid amount along with electricity charges within next 3 months. 9. In compliance of the direction issued by the Division Bench, the petitioner submitted representation dated 08.03.2007 to the Deputy Commissioner, Karbi Anglong and requested him to assess the compensation/rent and make the payment of the same along with electricity bills. Thereafter, the Assistant Revenue Officer, Karbi Anglong Autonomous Council, Diphu submitted the report regarding the land value of the petitioner to the Respondent No.7 and as per the report, the total land of the petitioner is measuring about 59 Bighas 4 Kathas, 5 Lechas. The land value has been assessed@ Rs.10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten Lakhs) only per Bigha totaling Rs.5,98,50,000/- (Rupees five crores ninety eight lakhs fifty thousand) only vide Memo No.KAAC/ARO/DPU/LVC/15/2006-07 dated 07.06.2007. 10. The respondent No.7 directed the Executive Engineer, PWD (Building) Division, Diphu to assess the monthly rent of the factory premises of the petitioner in accordance with law and submit the report vide order/Memo No.KNZ.103(A)CIOPS/2007/141-A dated 02.06.2007. On 02.06.2007 the respondent No.7, vide Memo No.KNZ. 103(A)CIOPS/2007/142-A dated 02.06.2007, submitted a proposal to respondent No.8 for sanction of fund amounting to Rs.35,71,272/-, being the pending electricity charges and also appraised him that fund for rent would be proposed after receiving the reports from the Executive Engineer (Building) Division, Diphu. 11. On 02.06.2007 the respondent No.7, vide Memo No.KNZ. 103(A)CIOPS/2007/142-A dated 02.06.2007, submitted a proposal to respondent No.8 for sanction of fund amounting to Rs.35,71,272/-, being the pending electricity charges and also appraised him that fund for rent would be proposed after receiving the reports from the Executive Engineer (Building) Division, Diphu. 11. The Executive Engineer, PWD, Diphu (Building) Division, Diphu submitted a certificate of fixing the monthly rent of the building of the petitioner as per the provisions of the Assam Urban Areas Rent Control Act , 1972 and, accordingly the per month rent of the premises, as occupied by the CRPF personnel was fixed @ Rs.2,35,599/- per month, vide Memo No.Tech-34/847-49 dated 31.08.2007. 12. The petitioner contends that as there was undue delay in releasing the payment, the petitioner again submitted a representation dated 05.09.2007, through its counsel and requested them for making the payment. Thereafter, the respondent No.7 intimated the Commissioner and Secretary to the Govt. of Assam, Political (A) Department, Dispur, regarding fixation of rent and calculation of rent and electricity bill by the Executive Engineer, PWD (Building) Division, Diphu of the factory premises of the petitioner. Accordingly, the Respondent No.7 requested the Commissioner and Secretary to accord sanction of the said amount of Rs.2,00,44,623/- for payment to the petitioner by the order dated 10.10.2007. As there was a delay in making the payment, the petitioner again submitted representation dated 28.08.2008, to the Chief Secretary to the Government of Assam with a copy to Respondent No.7 and requested to expedite the matter for assessment of rent/compensation and for making the payment. 13. Thereafter the respondents intimated the petitioner by letter bearing No.PLA.420/2007/146 dated 10.09.2008 that they have already conveyed regarding sanction of payment of house rent and electricity bills vide memorandum No.PLA.420/2007/142 dated 03.06.2008. It is the pleaded case of the petitioner that the respondent No.7 in compliance of the direction of the Hon'ble Division Bench assessed and calculated just rent/compensation upto 31.10.2007 amounting to Rs.1,57,82,453/-. Therefore, the respondents are bound to make the payment of the said rent amount of Rs.1,57,82,453/- but the respondents most arbitrarily and illegal manner, instead of paying the said amount reduced the rent/compensation so assessed by the competent authority unilaterally. Therefore, the respondents are bound to make the payment of the said rent amount of Rs.1,57,82,453/- but the respondents most arbitrarily and illegal manner, instead of paying the said amount reduced the rent/compensation so assessed by the competent authority unilaterally. Moreover, in compliance of the direction issued by the Division Bench the said Deputy Commissioner by the said order dated 10.10.2007 fixed the rent @ Rs.2,35,559/- per month in accordance with law then thereafter, the arbitrary, illegal and without any base reduction of rent by the Respondent No.9, tantamounts to violation of the direction of the Hon'ble Division Bench. 14. The petitioner assailed the order/memorandum dated 03.06.2008 vide WP(C) No.2123/2009. The said writ petition was disposed on 25.10.2011 and has directed the respondent authorities, inter alia, to reconsider the earlier matter, if necessary by constituting a Committee. The amount of rent payable per month to be assessed and shall be paid to the petitioner. 15. The petitioner contends that the Executive Engineer, PWD(B), Diphu, Karbi Anglong by office order No.53 dated 20.12.2012 fixed the monthly rent of the said property @ Rs.3,53,399/- per month as per Assam Urban Areas Rent Control Act , 1972 with detail break up. On the other hand the independent Expert/Surveyor M/s. Macro vide its report dated 03.03.2012 assessed the monthly rent of the property @ Rs.6,50,727/- per month with detail break-up as per the Assam Rent Control Act, 1972. But the respondent assessed the rent of the property @ Rs.15,893/- per month based on method unknown to law. Therefore, fixation and assessment of so called rent by Respondents is clearly arbitrary, illegal based on erroneous consideration and is liable to be quashed. 16. Mr. R. Hussain, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that no rent was paid by the Respondents for the factory premises occupied by CRPF personnel since agreement to sale till date and the arrear rent for month of April, 2002 to month of March, 2015 are for 156 months yet to be paid by the Respondents. It is submitted that three different agencies assessed and fixed different monthly rent and there are disparity in all the monthly rent so fixed by them including Respondents. Accordingly, the arrear rent as per the three different Agencies are as follows :- (A) As per Executive Engineer, PWD(B), Diphu, Karbi Anglong. It is submitted that three different agencies assessed and fixed different monthly rent and there are disparity in all the monthly rent so fixed by them including Respondents. Accordingly, the arrear rent as per the three different Agencies are as follows :- (A) As per Executive Engineer, PWD(B), Diphu, Karbi Anglong. Monthly rent fixed = @Rs.3,53,339/- and arrear rent for 156 months (From April 2002 to March 2015) = 156 x 3,53,339/- = Rs.5,51,20,884/- (B) As per independent Agency - M/s Macro Monthly rent fixed=@Rs.6,50,727/- Arrear rent for 156 months (From April 2002 to March 2015) 156 x 6,50,727/- = Rs.10,15,13,412/- (C) As per Respondents/Committee Monthly rent fixed = Rs.15,893/-p.m. (Arrear rent for 156 months From April 2002 to March 2015) = 156 x 15893/- = Rs.24,79,308/-. 17. Mr. R. Hussain, learned counsel submits that the Respondents particularly Respondent No.2, all along acted in a very partisan manner in as much as they re-fixed the rent for the premises unilaterally as while fixing the rent no known method of law was adopted by them rather they completely ignored the material documents like order of Executive Engineer dated 20.11.2012, report dated 03.03.2012 of independent Agency, provisions of Assam Land (Requisition and Acquisition) Act , 1964 as well as the provisions of Assam Urban Areas Rent Control Act , 1972. It is further submitted that it is settled law that even bonafide action of the authorities if it was contrary to law, their motive may be good but their orders are illegal. They would accordingly, liable for loss caused to the petitioner. Accordingly, the impugned orders including decision taken by minutes of the meeting dated 15.11.2014 are bad in law and are liable to be set aside and quashed. He prays for setting aside and quashing the impugned decision/minutes of the meeting dated 15.11.2014 of the Committee and consequential orders No.PLA.228/2009/267 dated 16.12.2014 and KNZ- 103(A)CIOPS/2007/463 dated 17.01.2015 and for payment of arrear rent as per law. 18. Mr. He prays for setting aside and quashing the impugned decision/minutes of the meeting dated 15.11.2014 of the Committee and consequential orders No.PLA.228/2009/267 dated 16.12.2014 and KNZ- 103(A)CIOPS/2007/463 dated 17.01.2015 and for payment of arrear rent as per law. 18. Mr. R. Hussain, learned counsel, while referring to Section 11 of the provisions of Assam Land (Requisition and Acquisition) Act , 1964, submits that where any land is requisitioned under Section 3 of the said Act, compensation shall be paid to every person interested on such compensation, as may be acted upon in writing in between such person and the Collector or in the absence of reasonable compensation in respect of requisition of such land and the damage done during the period of requisition of such land, other than what may have been sustained by reasonable wear and tear and irresistible force, provided that such amount shall not exceed the land payable under the provisions of the Assam Urban Areas Rent Control Act , 1972. Therefore, the authorities are bound to pay the compensation/rent in accordance with the law. The fixation of rent by the Committee, which has been accepted by the respondent authorities is not in accordance with the law and as such, the authorities may be directed to properly asses the rent, as directed by the learned Division Bench as well as by the learned Single Judge, in the above referred Writ Appeal No.77/2007 as well as in the WP(C) No.212/2009, by fixing the fair rent in accordance with the law. 19. Mr. D. Mazumdar, learned Addl. Advocate General, Assam for the State respondents, submits that the land in question has not been requisitioned at all under Section 3 of the Assam Land (Requisition and Acquisition) Act , 1964, but only fixed the rent in pursuant to the direction of this Court, which is fair. The provisions of the Assam Land (Requisition and Acquisition) Act , 1964 is not applicable at all, as the same has not been invoked in the present case. He submits that M/s. Wood Craft Products Limited, situated at Dilajee, Diphu, Karbi Anglong had agreed to provide/spare some accommodation for establishing Battalion Head Quarter of the CRPF and accordingly, said M/s. Wood Craft Products Limited has stated that they would not charge anything against the said accommodation. He submits that M/s. Wood Craft Products Limited, situated at Dilajee, Diphu, Karbi Anglong had agreed to provide/spare some accommodation for establishing Battalion Head Quarter of the CRPF and accordingly, said M/s. Wood Craft Products Limited has stated that they would not charge anything against the said accommodation. Once the promise is made that the land would be provided free of charge for the said accommodation, the doctrine of promissory estoppels demands that the parties cannot go back on its promises, without giving due notice. He submits that, that apart, the ownership of the premises as claimed by the petitioner has not been proved, as there is no proper transfer of the premises except the agreement for sale. Since there is no valid transfer of the premises, no title or ownership is conferred, which gives right to the petitioner for claiming compensation/rent. The Deputy Commissioner, Karbi Anglong had requested the petitioner to furnish authenticated documents including copy of necessary permission from the KAAC and land holding certificates showing formal transfer of the land of M/s. Wood Craft Products Limited, to the petitioner vide order dated 18.02.2009. However, the petitioner has failed to submit any documents in support of the claim. He submits that the Karbi Anglong District is th governed under the 6 Schedule of the Constitution of India and for sale of land in the District, prior permission is required from the KAAC before executing the sale, as per Section 3 of the Mikir Hills District (Transfer of Land) Act, 1959. The KAAC clarified its stand vide its letter dated 06.05.2008 and stated that no permission was obtained for sale of land to the petitioner. Therefore, it is evident that M/s. Wood Craft Products Limited is the owner of the land and the petitioner possessed no right as per the land records. 20. Mr. Mazumdar, learned Addl. Advocate General, Assam submits that the impugned fixation of rate at at Rs.15,893/- (Rupees fifteen thousand eight hundred ninety three) only has been fairly done by the Committee pursuant to the direction of this Court, which cannot be said to be not in accordance with the law. As such the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. 21. Mr. D. Mazumdar, learned Addl. As such the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. 21. Mr. D. Mazumdar, learned Addl. Advocate General submits that the apprehension of the State is with regard to the claim that may be made by the owner of the premises/land, if the compensation or rent is paid to the petitioner which would complicate the matter and loss of revenue of the State, as it is evident that the premises/land has not been validly transferred to the petitioner and the petitioner has failed to establish that the land has been validly transferred in his favour, despite providing opportunities to establish the same by the authorities as well as in the present proceedings. The rent at Rs.15,893/- (Rupees fifteen thousand eight hundred ninety three) only per month has been fixed by the Committee constituted by the Government in compliance with the order of this Court dated 25.10.2011, by affording ample opportunities to the petitioner, on the basis of the value of the property, as reflected in the sale deed, valued at Rs.35 lakhs vide minutes of the meeting of the Committee held on 10.04.2012. 22. He submits that the petitioner was heard on four occasions on 10.04.2012, 26.06.2012, 18.08.2012 and 15.11.2014, for the purpose of reassessment of the rent but the petitioner could not produce authenticated documents issued by the competent authority, in support of his claim over the land in question. Therefore, the Committee so constituted fixed the rent by adopting fair method and gave 10% annual increment, although as per the PWD norms is 7% annual increment, thereby giving benefit of extra 3% of annual increment beyond 7% after consideration of the representation as well as hearing the petitioner. He submits that although the petitioner has failed to establish the valid transfer of the premises/land, except the agreement of sale without registration, which cannot substantiate the claim of the petitioner, in compliance of the direction of this Court, the fair rent has been fixed, after hearing the petitioner. Therefore, the petitioner is not entitled for any compensation/rent, other than the rent fixed at Rs.15,893/- (Rupees fifteen thousand eight hundred ninety three) only, fixed by the Committee. 23. On the other hand, Mr. J. Chutia, learned standing counsel for the KAAC while raising the maintainability, submits that Section 4 of the Assam Urban Areas Rent Control Act , 1972 provides the procedure for determination of the fair rent. 23. On the other hand, Mr. J. Chutia, learned standing counsel for the KAAC while raising the maintainability, submits that Section 4 of the Assam Urban Areas Rent Control Act , 1972 provides the procedure for determination of the fair rent. It provides that if any dispute arises regarding the rent payable in respect of any house, it shall be determined by the Court. The Court shall on application made by either the landlord or the tenant, issue notice on both the parties and after making such inquiry as it deems fit, determine the monthly rent for the house in accordance with the provisions of Section 3 and the rent so determined shall be binding on both the parties. Since the fair rent has been fixed, the present writ petition is not maintainable, as Section 4 provides that if any dispute arises regarding rent payable, the same would be determined on the application of the aggrieved party, filed before the Court of ordinary Civil Jurisdiction in the area. The petitioner appears to be aggrieved by the quantum of the rent fixed by the Committee constituted pursuant to the direction of this Court and claiming fair rent. Therefore, the present writ petition is not maintainable, as the petitioner has alternative remedy under the law. 24. Mr. J. Chutia, learned standing counsel, while subscribing to the submission of learned Addl. Advocate General, Assam submits that the Mikir Hills District (Transfer of Land) Act, 1959 has been enacted for regulation and control of transfer of land within the territorial jurisdiction of the KAAC. Section 3 of the Act provides that no land under the jurisdiction of District Council shall be sold, mortgaged, leased, bartered, gifted or otherwise transferred by a tribal to a non-tribal or by a non-tribal to another non-tribal except with the previous permission of the Executive Committee. In the present case, he submits that there is no valid transfer except the agreement to sale and the order of Committee showing transfer of the premises/land of the M/s. Wood Craft Products Limited to the petitioner. Therefore, unless there is a valid transfer as per the law, the petitioner would not have any right to claim for compensation/rent. The fair rent has been fixed by the Committee constituted by the Government pursuant to the order of this Court in Writ Appeal No.77/2007 as well as in WP(C) No.212/2009. Therefore, unless there is a valid transfer as per the law, the petitioner would not have any right to claim for compensation/rent. The fair rent has been fixed by the Committee constituted by the Government pursuant to the order of this Court in Writ Appeal No.77/2007 as well as in WP(C) No.212/2009. In view of the above, the writ petition apart from not being maintainable, is liable to be dismissed on merit . 25. Due consideration has been extended to the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and also perused the materials on record. 26. At the very outset, it is to be observed that the provisions of the Assam Land (Requisition and Acquisition) Act , 1964 will not be applicable in the present case, as no requisition of land under the Act has been made. It is only the fixation of rent for premises/land claimed by the petitioner, which has been given for establishment of the CRPF Battalion Head Quarter at Dilajee, Diphu. Thus no consideration is required to be made to the provisions of the Assam Land (Requisition and Acquisition) Act , 1964. 27. Although it is not clearly reflected under what provisions of law, the rent has been fixed by the Committee, except to the affect that the same has been fixed by the Committee, constituted by the Government in pursuant to the order passed by this Court in WP(C) No.212/2009. It appears that the principle of the Assam Urban Areas Rent Control Act , 1972 has been applied, therefore, I deem it appropriate to refer to the relevant Sections. 28. Section 2(a) defines "Court" means the Court of Ordinary Civil Jurisdiction in the area in which a house is situated which would be competent to pass a decree for the eviction of a tenant from that house. Section 3 provides for fair rent. Section 4 provides for the procedure for determination of fair rent as under: “If any dispute arises regarding the rent payable in respect of any house, it shall be determined by the Court. The Court shall on application made by either the landlord or the tenant issue notice on both the parties, and after making such enquiry as it thinks fit determine the monthly rent for the house in accordance with the provisions of Section 3 and the rent so determined shall be binding on both the parties”. 29. The Court shall on application made by either the landlord or the tenant issue notice on both the parties, and after making such enquiry as it thinks fit determine the monthly rent for the house in accordance with the provisions of Section 3 and the rent so determined shall be binding on both the parties”. 29. On bare reading of the above provisions of the Assam Urban Areas Rent Control Act , 1972, no landlord shall entitle to charge for any house at a figure other than the standard rent and also provides for procedure for determination of fair rent and if any dispute arises regarding the rent payable in respect of any house, it shall be determined by the Court. 30. On consideration of the above provisions, I am of the view that same would be applicable in respect of any house between the landlord and the tenant. Thus, the parties cannot be relegated to the forum under the Assam Urban Areas Rent Control Act , 1972 as the same would not be applicable in the present case. 31. Now the issue to be determined in the present case is essentially as to whether the rent fixed by the Committee, constituted by the Government in pursuant to the order passed by this Court in WP(C) No.212/2009 is fair or the same has been properly assessed. For better appreciation, the minutes of the Committee is extracted hereinbelow: “1. In pursuance of Hon'ble Gauhati High Court's order, the Committee heard the petitioners on four occasions on 10/04/2012, 26/06/2012, 18/08/2012, 05/10/2012 and on 15/11/2014. The petitioner could not submit any document(s) to substantiate the value of property in question. In the meeting dtd. 18/08/2012, the petitioners has submitted that an amount of Rs.29,92,500/- has been deposited to the Karbi Anglong Autonomous Council as fee for transfer of the land in question in favour of the Bizari Veneer and Saw Mills Ltd. The petitioner stated that the sale transaction was effected between the two sister concerns. That is why the real indicia of the market value of the premises was not reflected in the Sale Deed. In the meeting held on 05/10/2012, the petitioners were specifically asked to submit factual documents/basis on which the transaction of the land in question was executed between the two sister concerns. 2. After granting an opportunity of 2 years. Shri Firoz Ahmed. In the meeting held on 05/10/2012, the petitioners were specifically asked to submit factual documents/basis on which the transaction of the land in question was executed between the two sister concerns. 2. After granting an opportunity of 2 years. Shri Firoz Ahmed. Attorney of Bizari Veneer & Saw Mills Ltd., who was present in the meeting sought 2(two) days time to submit the registered agreement between the two sister concerns which they could not do in the last 2 years and also no evidence is produced whether any progress has been made in this regard. Therefore, their request for seeking 2 days time is not founded on sound grounds. 3. In the light of the above, the Committee left with but no option to rely on most authentic value of property which is available in the form of Sale Deed that was executed on 06/04/2002 disclosing the consideration value of the land in question as Rs.35,00,000/- only. 4. Therefore Committee decides to fix the rent as following as on date of settlement i.e. 06/04/2002 with annual increment of 10% every year to offset the increase in market price/inflation: Total Cost of the Property = Rs.35,00,000.00 Total Area = 35.87 Bigha Value per Bigha = Rs.35,00,000.00/35.87 = Rs.97575.00 Area Occupied by CRPF Personnel = 26.06 Bigha Value of the occupied premise = Rs.97575.00 x 26.06 = Rs.25,42,805.00 7.5% of Value of the occupied premise = Rs. 190710.00 Rent per month = Rs.15,893.00” 32. On perusal of the above minutes, it is noticed that the petitioner was granted ample opportunity to place his grievance. Despite of granting opportunities, the petitioner appears to have not been able to produce any documents that the petitioner would be entitled to the higher rent than the rent fixed. The Committee has relied on the value of the property in the form of sale deed executed on 06.04.2002, disclosing the consideration value of the land in question at Rs.35 lakh. The Committee also decided to fix the rent @ Rs.15,893/- (Rupees fifteen thousand eight hundred ninety three) only, per month as on date of the settlement dated 06.04.2002, with annual increment of10% every year to offset the increase in the market price/inflation. 33. The Committee also decided to fix the rent @ Rs.15,893/- (Rupees fifteen thousand eight hundred ninety three) only, per month as on date of the settlement dated 06.04.2002, with annual increment of10% every year to offset the increase in the market price/inflation. 33. It is noticed that the petitioner has failed to establish that the land/premises in question has been validly transferred in accordance with the law, in view of the fact that the land in question falls within the jurisdiction and th domain of the KAAC, being the 6 Schedule Area, having its own enacted law for transfer of the land. As noted above, the Mikir Hills District (Transfer of Land) Act, 1959, has been enacted which prescribes certain procedures to be followed. In the present case, nothing is discernible that the land/premises in question has been validly transferred or in accordance with the Act of 1959. Resultantly, the petitioner would not have any indefeasible right to claim of compensation/rent over the land/premises in question in strict sense. 34. Be that as it may, since this Court vide order dated 25.10.2011 passed in the WP(C) No.212/2009, has directed the petitioner to file a representation and the respondent authority i.e. the Commissioner and Secretary to the Government of Assam, Political (A) Department to reconsider the entire matter, if necessary by constituting a committee to make inquiry to that effect, which shall necessarily hear the petitioner also and to pass a fresh order after hearing the petitioner and directed the petitioner to file all necessary documents so as to enable the authorities to arrive at just a decision relating to the amount of rent payable to the petitioner, pursuant to which the impugned rent has been fixed by a Committee constituted by the Government of Assam, the reasonableness or fairness is the only issue to be determined, as claimed by the petitioner, which has already been discussed and considered. 35. Having considered the entire facts and circumstances and the proceedings undertaken by the Committee, as constituted in pursuant to the order of this Court, I am of the view that the rent fixed by the Committee, as constituted in pursuant to the order of this Court, vide impugned decision dated 15.11.2014, appears to be fair and reasonable. 35. Having considered the entire facts and circumstances and the proceedings undertaken by the Committee, as constituted in pursuant to the order of this Court, I am of the view that the rent fixed by the Committee, as constituted in pursuant to the order of this Court, vide impugned decision dated 15.11.2014, appears to be fair and reasonable. Therefore, without going into the claims and counter claims with regard to the title of the land, as to whether the same has been validly transferred or not, this Court is of the view that the rent fixed by the Committee pursuant to the direction of this Court in the WP(C) No.212/2009 requires no interference. 36. In view of the discussion made hereinabove, this court finds no infirmity in the said decision of fixing the rent. Thus, no relief can be granted to the petitioner, directing the respondent authorities to pay the compensation/rent higher than the rent fixed by the Committee. 37. Consequently, the writ petition stands dismissed. However, with no order as to costs.