Gauhati High Court
Page No.# 1/5 vs The State Of Assam And 7 Ors on 14 March, 2023
Page No.# 1/5
GAHC010049842022
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : WP(C)/1864/2022
SAFIQUR RAHMAN TALUKDAR AND 6 ORS
S/O- LATE MUBESAR ALI TALUKDAR, VILL.- NAHARGAON, P.O. AND P.S.
DOBOKA, DIST. HOJAI, ASSAM, PIN- 782440.
2: CHIDDEKHA BEGUM
D/O- LATE MUBESAR ALI TALUKDAR
VILL.- NAHARGAON
P.O. AND P.S. DOBOKA
DIST. HOJAI
ASSAM
PIN- 782440.
3: MUSLIMA BEGUM
D/O- LATE MUBESAR ALI TALUKDAR
VILL.- NAHARGAON
P.O. AND P.S. DOBOKA
DIST. HOJAI
ASSAM
PIN- 782440.
4: AKLIMA BEGUM
D/O- LATE MUBESAR ALI TALUKDAR
VILL.- NAHARGAON
P.O. AND P.S. DOBOKA
DIST. HOJAI
ASSAM
PIN- 782440.
5: FATIMA BEGUM
D/O- LATE MUBESAR ALI TALUKDAR
VILL.- NAHARGAON
P.O. AND P.S. DOBOKA
DIST. HOJAI
ASSAM, PIN- 782440.
Page No.# 2/5
6: JUBEDA BEGUM
D/O- LATE MUBESAR ALI TALUKDAR
VILL.- NAHARGAON
P.O. AND P.S. DOBOKA
DIST. HOJAI
ASSAM
PIN- 782440.
7: KHALILUR RAHMAN
D/O- LATE MUBESAR ALI TALUKDAR
VILL.- NAHARGAON
P.O. AND P.S. DOBOKA
DIST. HOJAI
ASSAM
PIN- 782440
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 7 ORS
TO BE REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE
GOVT. OF ASSAM, IRRIGATION DEPARTMENT, DISPUR, GUWAHATI-6.
2:THE CHIEF ENGINEER
IRRIGATION
ASSAM
CHANDMARI
GUWAHATI-3.
3:THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
NAGAON
DIST. NAGAON
ASSAM
PIN- 782001.
4:THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
HOJAI
SANKARDEVNAGAR
DIST.- HOJAI
ASSAM
PIN- 782435.
5:THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
NAGAON DIVISION (IRRIGATION)
NAGAON
DIST.- NAGAON
ASSAM
PIN- 782001.
Page No.# 3/5
6:THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
HOJAI DIVISION (IRRIGATION)
DIST. HOJAI
ASSAM
PIN- 782435.
7:THE ASSTT. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
JAMUNAMUKH
SUB-DIVISION (IRRIGATION)
DOBOKA TOWN
WARD NO. 10
DIST.- HOJAI
ASSAM
PIN- 782440.
8:THE CIRCLE OFFICER
HOJAI REVENUE CIRCLE
DIST.- HOJAI
ASSAM
PIN- 782435
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. N H MAZARBHUIYAN
Advocate for the Respondent : GA, ASSAM
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR MEDHI
ORDER
14-03-2023
Heard Shri N. Islam, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Shri N.
Upadhyay, learned counsel for the Irrigation Department whereas the State
respondents are represented by Shri R. Talukdar, the learned Government Advocate.
The petitioners who are 7 in numbers claim to be owners/patta holders of 3
Bighas 4 Kathas 18 lechas of land in village Nahargaon in the district of Hojai
appertaining to Kisamat patta No. 151, dag No. 18, 59 and 60. It is the case of the
petitioners that in the year 1965, the aforesaid land was acquired by the respondents
for setting up of an office for Irrigation project. The petitioners contend that assurance
Page No.# 4/5
has made for payment of due compensation, upon which the land was handed over to
the Department. It is the case of the petitioner that till now, no compensation has
been paid.
Shri Islam, the learned counsel for the petitioners submits that due process of
law was not followed while acquiring the land.
The prayer made in the writ petition reads as follows:-
"Under the above facts and circumstances it is humbly prayed that your Lordships
would be pleased to admit this application, call for the records of the case and Issue Rule nisi
upon the respondents as to why a Writ in the nature of Certiorari or of Mandamus, as prayed
for, shall not be issued commanding the respondents to vacate the valuable land belonged to
the petitioners which is under illegal occupation of the respondent No. 7 or to pay adequate
compensation if the land is required for public purpose and after hearing the parties and on
perusal of records make the Rule absolute and/or pass such other or further order(s) as Your
Lordships may deem fit and proper."
Perusal of the averments and the prayer would make it clear that the relief
pertains to vacating the plot of land or payment of compensation. A perusal of the
averments would show that no particulars of any acquisition proceedings have been
even mentioned.
What intrigues this Court is the inordinate delay from 1965 till the year 2023 to
approach this Court. Responding to the same, Shri Islam has submitted that
representations were filed in the year 1985, 1995, 2016 and 2022.
It is the settled law that mere filing of representation without any
acknowledgment shall not extend the period of limitation and in any case, cannot be
taken as a materials to suggest due diligence of the petitioners.
The instant case clearly appears to be one where the petitioners have acted
without any due diligence and rather it reflects absolute negligence. This Court
exercising powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is the Court of equity
wherein the conduct of parties is also required to be examined. In the instant case,
apart from the fact of inordinate delay, no discernible materials appear from the writ
petition which entails the petitioners for entertaining the disputes sought to be
projected.
Page No.# 5/5
Shri Islam has placed before this Court a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court
dated 06.04.2022 passed in SLP No. 1320/2020. The facts of the case therein are
entirely different whereas in the instant case being dismissal is on account of lack of
due diligence and inordinate delay. In the opinion of this Court the aforesaid decisions
will not come to the aid of the petitioners.
The writ petition is accordingly dismissed.
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
