Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 1911 (GAU)

Makdam Ali Assam v. Union of India

2025-11-24

KARDAK ETE

body2025
ORDER : KARDAK ETE, J. Heard Mr. A. Y. Choudhury, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Ms. G. Hazarika, learned Standing Counsel, Revenue Department for the respondent No. 2; Mr. R. K. Talukdar, learned Standing Counsel, NHIDCL for respondent No. 3; Mr. N. Goswami, learned Government Advocate for State respondent Nos. 4 & 5; and Ms. S. Sharma, learned Standing Counsel, PWD for respondent No. 6. 2. The petitioner claims to be the owner of plot of land situated at Mouja Kalinagar Part 1, PS-Panchagarm, District Hailakandi covering Dag No. 315, Patta No. 123 and Dag No. 320, Patta No. 125. It is contended that the land of the petitioner, measuring 2 Bighas, has been acquired by the Government of India under the National Highway Act, 1956. The grievance raised is to the effect that the compensation has not been paid as per the market value and as per the Revised Zonal Valuation of the acquired land under the provision of NATIONAL HIGHWAYS ACT , 1956. Aggrieved of such inadequate compensation, the petitioner filed an application before the District Commissioner, Hailakandi, which, according to him, has not been considered as on today. Therefore, he seeks a direction to consider and dispose of representation of the petitioner. 3. When this matter was taken up on 03.09.2025, the learned State Counsel, on instruction, had submitted that the entire compensation amount has already been disbursed on 08.08.2024 and 04.10.2024; to which, Mr. A. Y. Choudhury, learned counsel, sought for time to obtain instruction. 4. Today, Mr. Choudhury, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the petitioner has received the compensable amount, however the same is inadequate and not in accordance with the market value and the Revised Zonal Valuation of the acquired land under the provision of NATIONAL HIGHWAYS ACT , 1956. 5. Mr. R. K. Talukdar, learned Standing Counsel, NHIDCL, while referring to the provision of Section 3G(5) of the NATIONAL HIGHWAYS ACT , 1956, submits that if the amount determined by the competent authority is not acceptable, the petitioner has to file an application before the arbitrator appointed by the Central Government for its determination. Therefore, the petitioner having not been availed the remedy under the above provisions, writ petition is not maintainable. 6. I have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties. 7. Therefore, the petitioner having not been availed the remedy under the above provisions, writ petition is not maintainable. 6. I have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties. 7. Section 3G(5) of the NATIONAL HIGHWAYS ACT , 1956 clearly provides that if the amount determined by the competent authority is not acceptable to either of the parties, the amount shall, on an application by either of the parties, be determined by the arbitrator to be appointed by the Central Government. 8. Having considered that the petitioner has not filed any application to be determined by the Arbitrator for determination of the claim of the petitioner, I deem it appropriate to dispose of this writ petition by granting liberty to the petitioner to file appropriate application before the competent authority for determination of his claim in terms of Section 3G(5) of the NATIONAL HIGHWAYS ACT , 1986. 9. Writ petition stands disposed of.