JUDGMENT : Sanjay Kumar Medhi, J. Heard Shri H.R.A. Choudhury, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Shri J.M. Sulaiman, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Shri N. Das, learned State Counsel, Assam; Shri S. Dutta, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Ms. I. Das, learned counsel for the Inland Waterways Authority of India and Ms. G. Hazarika, learned Standing Counsel, Revenue Department, Assam. 2. The instant writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed with the following prayers: “Under the circumstances, it is, therefore prayed that Your Lordships would graciously be pleased to admit this petition, call for the records, issue Rule, calling upon the Respondents to show cause as to why – A) a Writ in the nature of Mandamus should not be issued directing the respondents particularly the respondent No. 3 and 5 to grant / release / pay adequate compensation, based on prevailing market rate, with interest to the petitioners to which they are duly entitled for; B) a Writ in the nature of Mandamus should not be issued directing the respondents to remove / shift / clean the debris dumped in the land measuring 4 Bigha 3 Katha 14 Chattak situated at Mouza-Buribail Pt-I, Pargona- Jatrapur, appertaining to 2nd R.S having Patta No. 203 and Dag No. 337 belonging to the petitioners so that the petitioners can use their own land again; C) any such other or further order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may be deemed fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of the case; And after hearing the parties, cause / causes being shown and on perusal of records this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to make the Rule absolute for the ends of justice. -AND- Further, it is also prayed that, pending disposal of this writ petition shall not be a bar to pay adequate compensation to the petitioners and in removing / shifting / cleaning the debris etc. From the scheduled and belonging to the petitioners and/or pass any such further order orders as your Lordships may deem fit and proper.” 3. As per the facts projected in this petition which has been filed jointly by 3 nos. of petitioners, in the year 2017, a project in the name, “Barak Namami” was undertaken for dredging / excavation of the Barak River. In the said exercise, huge quantity of sand, silt, mud, debris etc. As per the facts projected in this petition which has been filed jointly by 3 nos. of petitioners, in the year 2017, a project in the name, “Barak Namami” was undertaken for dredging / excavation of the Barak River. In the said exercise, huge quantity of sand, silt, mud, debris etc. were extracted from the river bed and according to the petitioners, those are dumped on the miyadi patta lands of the petitioners. It is the specific case of the petitioners that no kind of any consent was taken from the petitioners for such dumping and even long after the dumping so done, no steps were taken to remove the same. The petitioners have represented before the authorities and as no steps were taken for payment of compensation, the instant writ petition has been filed. 4. Shri Choudhury, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners has drawn the attention of this Court to certain documents to canvass that there is no dispute on the factual issue. He has submitted that on a representation submitted by the petitioners, a report was called for by the Addl. Deputy Commissioner, Cachar, vide communication dated 14.10.2022 from the Circle Officer / Assistant Settlement Officer, Katigorah Revenue Circle, Cachar. In response to the said communication, a report was submitted by the Circle Officer, Katigorah Revenue Circle dated 15.11.2022 wherein, the claim was found to be authentic. It was stated that an area of land measuring 4 bigha 3 kathas 14 chattak covered by Dag No. 337 pertaining to 2nd R.S. Patta No. 203 of Village-Buribail Part-I, Pargora-Jatrapur belonging to the petitioners were affected and were rendered unfit for cultivation. It was also stated that the same had occurred due to dumping of huge quantity of silt / debris over the agricultural lands of the petitioners during the project “Barak Namami”. The aspect of not obtaining NOC from the concerned petitioners was also stated in the said report. 5. Shri Choudhury, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners has, accordingly submitted that the State authorities are duty bound to pay reasonable compensation for the aforesaid action which has caused immense loss to the petitioners. 6. Shri Das, learned State Counsel has, however, raised a preliminary objection that the Contractor through whom the work has been done has not been made party and the present claim has been made on an action of the Contractor. 6. Shri Das, learned State Counsel has, however, raised a preliminary objection that the Contractor through whom the work has been done has not been made party and the present claim has been made on an action of the Contractor. He has also submitted that factual aspects are involved which may not be able to be gone into by this Court in exercise of its power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, more so when such facts are disputed. The learned State Counsel has, however, very fairly placed before this Court a copy of written communication dated 10.02.2025 issued by the Assistant Settlement Officer, Katigorah Revenue Circle whereby, the aspect of suffering loss by the petitioners has been admitted and the aspect of making some assessment has also been stated. 7. Shri Dutta, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Inland Waterways Authority of India has submitted that the involvement of his client was only to facilitate the aforesaid project and would not have a material role in the adjudication of the present claim. He has submitted that if any claim is able to be justified, the same has to be made by the State authorities or by the Contractor. 8. Shri Choudhury, learned Senior Counsel in his rejoinder has submitted that though the Contractor was initially not made a party in the present proceedings, subsequently, the Contractor was arrayed as a party respondent no. 8 and notice was issued to him in spite of which, he has chosen not to contest the proceeding. 9. After hearing the rival submissions and the materials placed before this Court, it is not in dispute that on account of execution of the project, “Barak Namami”, the lands of the petitioners were made unfit for cultivation by dumping of silt, sand, debris etc. The fact finding report submitted by the Circle Officer would show that the claim of the petitioners is authentic and bona fide. The aforesaid communication dated 10.02.2025 has also stated that the lands have become unfit for further cultivation and no attempts were made to remove the silt, sand, debris etc. despite of lapse of a considerable amount of time. 10. The aforesaid communication dated 10.02.2025 has also stated that the lands have become unfit for further cultivation and no attempts were made to remove the silt, sand, debris etc. despite of lapse of a considerable amount of time. 10. Though the learned State Counsel may be right in contending that the aspect of compensation may not be able to be assessed by a Writ Court, a perusal of the aforesaid communication dated 10.02.2025 would reveal that an assessment of loss suffered by the petitioners has been done. 11. Under the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this Court is of the view that without expressing any comments on the correctness or otherwise of the assessment made, the matter is required to be considered and disposed of by the District Commissioner, Cachar, in terms of the report dated 15.11.2022 and the communication dated 10.02.2025. 12. Accordingly, it is directed that the petitioners are required to file a fresh representation with a period of 15 days from today with a copy of this order, including a copy of the earlier representation said to have been submitted by the petitioners. Upon such submission, the concerned District Commissioner, Cachar would consider and dispose of the same by passing appropriate order(s) of payment of compensation on a reasonable and fair rate. The said exercise be completed within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of the representation as mentioned above. 13. The State authorities would, however, be at liberty to recover the amount from the concerned Contractor, if so advised. 14. A copy of the communication dated 10.02.2025 is made a part of the records. 15. The writ petition accordingly stands disposed of in the terms indicated above.