Gauhati High Court
Gopinath Bordoloi International ... vs Sri Rama Kanta Baruah And 2 Ors on 28 January, 2025
Author: Devashis Baruah
Bench: Devashis Baruah
Page No.# 1/40
GAHC010147772017
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : LA.App./14/2017
AIRPORT AUTHORITY OF INDIA
CONSTITUTED UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF AIRPORT AUTHORITY OF
INDIA ACT 1994 AMENDMENT 2003 HAVING ITS OFFICE AT LOKAPRIYA
GOPINATH BORDOLOI INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT REPRESENTED BY
AIRPORT DIRECTOR, LGBI AIRPORT, GUWAHATI.
VERSUS
SRI RAMA KANTA BARUAH and 2 ORS
S/O NOT KNOWN, R/O VILL. GARAL, MOUZA RAMCHARANI, DIST.
KAMRUP, ASSAM,PIN 781017
2:THE STATE OF ASSAM
REPRESENTED BY THE SECY. TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM
REVENUE LR DEPTT.
DISPUR
GUWAHATI -06
3:THE DIST. COLLECTOR
KAMRUP
ASSAM
Linked Case : LA.App./4/2023
AIRPORT AUTHORITY OF INDIA
REPRESENTED BY THE COMMERCIAL MANAGER L
LGBI AIRPORT
GUWAHATI.
Page No.# 2/40
VERSUS
JOGEN BAISHYA and 5 ORS
S/O NOT KNOWN R/O VILLAGE GARAL
MOUZA- RAMCHARANI DIST KAMRUP ASSAM
2:BIPIN BAISHYA
S/O-NOT KNOWN
R/O VILLAGE GARAL
MOUZA- RAMCHARANI DIST KAMRUP ASSAM
3:MUHIM BAISHYA
S/O- NOT KNOWN
- R/O VILLAGE GARAL
MOUZA- RAMCHARANI DIST KAMRUP ASSAM
4:CHAKRADHAR BAISHYA
SONS OF NOT KNOWN
ALL ARE R/O VILL. GARAL
MOUZA RAMCHARAI
DIST. KAMRUP
ASSAM.
Linked Case : LA.App./38/2017
AIRPORT AUTHORITY OF INDIA
CONSTITUTED UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF AIRPORT AUTHORITY OF
INDIA ACT 1994 (AMENDMENT 2003) HAVING ITS OFFICE AT LOKAPRIYA
GOPINATH BORDOLOI INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT REPRESENTED BY
AIRPORT DIRECTOR
LGBI AIRPORT
GUWAHATI.
VERSUS
PRABHAT CH. DAS
R/O VILL. GARAL
MOUZA RAMCHARANI
DIST. KAMRUP
ASSAM.
2:RABIN BARUAH
S/O NOT KNOWN
R/O VILL. GARAL
MOUZA RAMCHARANI
Page No.# 3/40
DIST. KAMRUP
ASSAM
3:THE STATE OF ASSAM
REPRESENTED BY THE SECY. TO THE GOVT.OF ASSAM
REVENUE (LR) DEPTT.
DISPUR
GUWAHATI-06
4:THE DIST. COLLECTOR
KAMRUP
ASSAM.
Linked Case : LA.App./16/2024
AIRPORT AUTHORITY OF INDIA
REPRESENTED BY THE COMMIERCIAL MANAGER L
LGBI AIRPORT
GUWAHATI
VERSUS
MD MIYAZAN ALI and 2 ORS
S/O NOT KNOWN
R/O VILL. GARAL
MOUZA RAMCHARANI
DIST. KAMRUP
ASSAM
PIN 781017
2:THE STATE OF ASSAM
REPRESENTED BY THE SECY. TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM
REVENUE (LR) DEPTT.
DISPUR
GUWAHATI-06
3:THE DIST. COLLECTOR
KAMRUP
ASSAM.
Linked Case : LA.App./10/2023
AIRPORT AUTHORITY OF INDIA
REP. BY THE COMMERCIAL MANAGER L
LGBI AIRPORT
GUWAHATI
Page No.# 4/40
VERSUS
SATYA RAM BARUA and 2 ORS
S/O. NOT KNOWN
R/O. VILL. GARAL
MOUZA- RAMCHARANI
DIST. KAMRUP
ASSAM
PIN-781017.
2:THE STATE OF ASSAM
REPRESENTED BY THE SECY. TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM
REVENUE LR
DEPTT.
DISPUR
GUWAHATI-06
3:THE DIST. COLLECTOR
KAMRUP M
ASSAM.
Linked Case : LA.App./13/2023
AIRPORT AUTHORITY OF INDIA
REPRESENTED BY THE COMMIERCIAL MANAGER
LGBI AIRPORT
GUWAHATI.
VERSUS
SRI BHAGI RAM KAKATI and 2 ORS
S/O NOT KNOWN
R/O VILL. GARAL
MOUZA RAMCHARANI
DIST. KAMRUP
ASSAM
PIN 781017
2:THE STATE OF ASSAM
REPRESENTED BY THE SECY. TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM
REVENUE LR DEPTT.
Page No.# 5/40
DISPUR
GUWAHATI-06
3:THE DIST. COLLECTOR
KAMRUP
ASSAM.
Linked Case : LA.App./37/2017
AIRPORT AUTHORITY OF INDIA
CONSTITUTED UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF AIRPORT AUTHORITY OF
INDIA ACT 1994 (AMENDMENT 2003) HAVING ITS OFFICE AT LOKPRIYA
GOPINATH BORDOLOI INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT REPRESENTED BY
AIRPORT DIRECTOR
LGBI AIRPORT
GUWAHATI.
VERSUS
MD. JAINUDDIN AHMED and 2 ORS
S/O NOT KNOWN
R/O VILL. GARAL
MOUZA RAMCHARANI
2:THE STATE OF ASSAM
REPRESENTED BY THE SECY. TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM
REVENUE (LR) DEPTT.
DISPUR
GUWAHATI-06
3:THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR
KAMRUP
ASSAM
Linked Case : LA.App./7/2023
AIRPORT AUTHORITY OF INDIA
REPRESENTED BY THE COMMERCIAL MANAGER L
LGBI AIRPORT
GUWAHATI
VERSUS
SATYARAM DAS and 2 ORS.
Page No.# 6/40
S/O NOT KNOWN
R/O VILL. GARAL
MOUZA RAMCHARANI
DIST. KAMRUP
ASSAM
PIN 781017
2:THE STATE OF ASSAM
REPRESENTED BY THE SECY. TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM
REVENUE LR DEPTT.
DISPUR
GUWAHATI-06
3:THE DIST. COLLECTOR
KAMRUP
ASSAM.
Linked Case : LA.App./53/2018
AIRPORT AUTHORITY OF INDIA
CONSTITUTED UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF AIRPORT AUTHORITY OF
INDIA ACT 1994 (AMENDMENT 2003) HAVING ITS OFFICE AT LOKAPRIYA
GOPINATH BORDOLOI INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT REPRESENTED BY
AIRPORT DIRECTOR
LGBI AIRPORT
GUWAHATI.
VERSUS
SRI UPEN DAS and 4 ORS
S/O NOT KNOWN
2:NIRANJAN DAS
S/O NOT KNOWN
3:NAVA DAS
S/O. NOT KNOWN
ALL ARE RESIDENT OF VILLAGE GARAL
MOUZA- RAMCHARANI
DIST. KAMRUP
ASSAM
Page No.# 7/40
PIN-781017.
4:THE STATE OF ASSAM
REP. BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM
REVENUE LR DEPTT.
DISPUR
GUWAHATI-06.
5:THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR
KAMRUP M
ASSAM.
Linked Case : LA.App./5/2023
AIRPORT AUTHORITY OF INDIA
REP. BY THE COMMERCIAL MANAGER L
LGBI AIRPORT
GUWAHATI
VERSUS
JADAB DAS and 2 ORS
S/O. NOT KNOWN
RESIDENT OF VILL. GARAL
MOUZA RAMCHARANI
DIST. KAMRUP
ASSAM
PIN-781017
2:THE STATE OF ASSAM
REP. BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM
REVENUE LR DEPTT.
DISPUR
GUWAHATI-06.
3:THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR
KAMRUP M
ASSAM.
Linked Case : LA.App./3/2023
AIRPORT AUTHORITY OF INDIA
REPRESENTED BY THE COMMERCIAL MANAGER L LGBI AIRPORT
Page No.# 8/40
GUWAHATI.
VERSUS
AKAN DAS and 2 ORS
S/O NOT KNOWN
R/O VILL. GARAL
MOUZA RAMCHARANI
DIST. KAMRUP
ASSAM
PIN CODE 781017
2:THE STATE OF ASSAM
REPRESENTED BY THE SECY. TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM
REVENUE LR DEPTT.
DISPUR
GUWAHATI-06
3:THE DIST. COLLECTOR
KAMRUP M
ASSAM.
Linked Case : LA.App./14/2023
AIRPORT AUTHORITY OF INDIA
REP. BY THE COMMERCIAL MANAGER L
LGBI AIRPORT
GUWAHATI.
VERSUS
AKAN CH. DAS and 3 ORS
ASSAM
2:PADMA RAM DAS
3:LOHIT DAS
4:SMTI. BARADA DAS
Page No.# 9/40
SONS OF NOT KNOWN
ALL ARE RESIDENT OF VILLAGE- GARAL
MOUZA- RAMCHARANI
DIST. KAMRUP
ASSAM
PIN-781017.
Linked Case : LA.App./15/2024
AIRPORT AUTHORITY OF INDIA
REPRESENTED BY AIRPORT DIRECTOR
LGBI AIRPORT
GUWAHATI.
VERSUS
SRI SATYA RAM BARUA and 2 ORS
Sri Satya Ram Barua
Resident of Village Garal
Mouza- Ramcharani
Dist- Kamrup
Assam.
2:THE STATE OF ASSAM
The State of Assam
represented by the Secretary to the Government of Assam
Revenue (LR) Department
Dispur
Guwahati-06.
3:THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR
The District Collector
Kamrup
Assam.
Linked Case : LA.App./15/2019
AIRPORT AUTHORITY OF INDIA
REPRESENTED BY THE COMMERCIAL MANAGER L
LGBI AIRPORT
Page No.# 10/40
GUWAHATI.
VERSUS
SRI PADMA RAM DAS and 3 ORS
S/O NOT KNOWN
RESIDENT OF VILLAGE GARAL
MOUZA-RAMCHARANI
DIST. KAMRUP
ASSAM
PIN 781017
2:SRI LOHIT DAS
SONS OF NOT KNOWN
BOTH ARE R/O VILL. GARAL
MOUZA RAMCHARANI
DIST. KAMRUP
ASSAM
PIN 781017
3:THE STATE OF ASSAM
REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVERMENT OF ASSAM
REVENUE (LR) DEPARTMENT
DISPUR
GUWAHATI-6
4:DISTRICT COLLECTOR
KAMRUP ASSAM
GUWAHATI-781001
Linked Case : LA.App./2/2021
AIRPORT AUTHORITY OF INDIA
VERSUS
SMTI PRAMILA DAS and 2 ORS
PRAMILA DAS and 2 ORS.
Address - DAUGHTER OF NOT KNOWN
R/O. VILL. GARAL
MOUZA- RAMCHARANI
Page No.# 11/40
DIST. KAMRUP
ASSAM
PIN-781017.
2:THE STATE OF ASSAM
REP. BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM
REVENUE LR DEPTT.
DISPUR
GUWAHATI-06.
3:THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR
KAMRUP
ASSAM.
Linked Case : LA.App./1/2023
AIRPORT AUTHORITY OF INDIA
REPRESENTED BY AIRPORT DIRECTOR
LGBI AIRPORT
GUWAHATI
VERSUS
AJIT BARUAH and 3 ORS
ASSAM
2:JATIN BARUAH
S/O NOT KNOWN
R/O VILL. GARAL
MOUZA RAMCHARANI
DIST. KAMRUP
ASSAM.
Linked Case : LA.App./19/2023
AIRPORT AUTHORITY OF INDIA.
REP. BY THE AIRPORT DIRECTOR
LGBI AIRPORT
GUWAHATI.
VERSUS
SATYA RAM DAS and 6 ORS.
Page No.# 12/40
R/O Village Garal
Mouza - Ramcharani
Dist- Kamrup
Assam
2:SRI PAHARAM DAS
3:SRI RATNESWAR DAS
4:SRI MUKUL DAS
5:SRI HIREN DAS
ALL ARE R/O. VILL. GARAL
MOUZA- RAMCHARANI
DIST. KAMRUP
ASSAM.
Linked Case : LA.App./18/2023
AIRPORT AUTHORITY OF INDIA
REPRESENTED BY AIRPORT DIRECTOR
LGBI AIRPORT
GUWAHATI
VERSUS
SRI GAGAN BAISHYA and 5 ORS
VILLAGE GARAL
MOUZA-RAMCHARANI
DIST.-KAMRUP
ASSAM
PIN-781017
2:BIPIN CH. BAISHYA
3:MUHIM BAISHYA
4:CHAKRADHAR BAISHYA
Page No.# 13/40
SONS OF NOT KNOWN
ALL ARE R/O VILL. GARAL
MOUZA RAMCHARANI
DIST. KAMRUP
ASSAM
PIN 781017
5:THE STATE OF ASSAM
REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM
REVENUE (LR) DEPARTMENT
DISPUR
GUWAHATI-06
6:THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR
KAMRUP
ASSAM
Linked Case : LA.App./15/2017
AIRPORT AUTHORITY OF INDIA
CONSTITUTED UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF AIRPORT AUTHORITY OF
INDIA ACT 1994 AMENDMENT 2003 HAVING ITS OFFICE AT LOKAPRIYA
GOPINATH BORDOLOI INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT REPRESENTED BY
AIRPORT DIRECTOR
LGBI AIRPORT
GUWAHATI
VERSUS
SRI AKAN CHANDRA DAS and 9 ORS
2:PADMA RAM DAS
LOIT DAS
3:SMTI BARADA DAS
4:RAGHU RAM DAS
5:BHAGABAN DAS
6:BAIKUMTHA DAS
Page No.# 14/40
7:NAGEN DAS
8:PRATAP DAS
SON/DAUGHTER OF NOT KNOWN R/O VILL. GARAL
MOUZA RAMCHARANI
DIST. KAMRUP
ASSAM
PIN 781017
9:THE STATE OF ASSAM
REPRESENTED BY THE SECY. TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM
REVENUE LR DEPTT.
DISPUR
GUWAHATI-06
10:THE DIST. COLLECTOR
KAMRUP
ASSAM.
Linked Case : LA.App./22/2018
AIRPORT AUTHORITY OF INDIA
CONSTITUTED UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF AIRPORT AUTHORITY OF
INDIA ACT 1994 (AMENDMENT 2003) HAVING ITS OFFICE AT LOKPRIYA
GOPINATH BORDOLOI INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT REPRESENTED BY
AIRPORT DIRECTOR
LGBI AIRPORT
GUWAHATI.
VERSUS
SRI RAMA KANTA BARUAH and 7 ORS
R/O VILL. GARAL
MOUZA RAMCHARANI
DIST. KAMRUP
ASSAM
PIN 781017
2:SRI BIDYADHAR BARUAH
R/O VILL. GARAL
MOUZA RAMCHARANI
DIST. KAMRUP
ASSAM
Page No.# 15/40
PIN 781017
3:SRI DHRUBA BARUAH
R/O VILL. GARAL
MOUZA RAMCHARANI
DIST. KAMRUP
ASSAM
PIN 781017
4:SRI ANANTA BARUAH
R/O VILL. GARAL
MOUZA RAMCHARANI
DIST. KAMRUP
ASSAM
PIN 781017
5:SRI BHABET BARUAH
R/O VILL. GARAL
MOUZA RAMCHARANI
DIST. KAMRUP
ASSAM
PIN 781017
6:SRI TILAK BARUAH
S/O NOT KNOWN
R/O VILL. GARAL
MOUZA RAMCHARANI
DIST. KAMRUP
ASSAM
PIN 781017
7:THE STATE OF ASSAM
REPRESENTED BY THE SECY. TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM
REVENUE (LR) DEPTT.
DISPUR
GUWAHATI-06
8:THE DIST. COLLECTOR
KAMRUP
ASSAM.
-
Linked Case : LA.App./8/2023
AIRPORT AUTHORITY OF INDIA
REP. BY THE COMMERCIAL MANAGER L
LGBI AIRPORT
Page No.# 16/40
GUWAHATI.
VERSUS
SRI SATYA RAM BARUAH and 2 ORS
S/O. NOT KNOWN
RESIDENT OF VILLAGE- GARAL
MOUZA- RAMCHARANI
DIST. KAMRUP
ASSAM
PIN-781017.
2:THE STATE OF ASSAM
REPRESENTED BY THE SECY. TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM
REVENUE LR
DEPTT.
DISPUR
GUWAHATI-06
3:THE DIST. COLLECTOR
KAMRUP M
ASSAM.
Linked Case : LA.App./21/2018
AIRPORT AUTHORITY OF INDIA
CONSTITUTED UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF AIRPORT AUTHORITY OF
INDIA ACT 1994(AMENDMENT 2003) HAVING ITS OFFICE AT LOKAPRIYA
GOPINATH BORDOLOI INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT REPRESENTED BY
AIRPORT DIRECTOR
LGBI AIRPORT
GUWAHATI
VERSUS
MD. BHALEHU SHEIKH and 2 ORS
S/O NOT KNOWN
R/O VILL. GARAL
MOUZA RAMCHARANNI
DIST. KAMRUP
ASSAM
PIN 781017
Page No.# 17/40
2:THE STATE OF ASSAM
REPRESENTED BY THE SECY. TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM
REVENUE (LR) DEPTT.
DISPUR
GUWAHATI-06
3:THE DIST. COLLECTTOR
KAMRUP
ASSAM.
Linked Case : LA.App./2/2023
AIRPORT AUTHORITY OF INDIA
REPRESENTED BY THE COMMERCIAL MANAGER L
LGBI AIRPORT
GUWAHATI.
VERSUS
SMTI DEKHANBALA DAS and 2 ORS
D/O NOT KNOWN
R/O VILL. GARAL
MOUZA RAMCHARANI
DIST. KAMRUP
ASSAM
PIN 781017
2:THE STATE OF ASSAM
REPRESENTED BY THE SECY. TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM
REVENUE LR
DEPTT.
DISPUR
GUWAHATI-06
3:THE DIST. COLLECTOR
KAMRUP M
ASSAM.
Linked Case : LA.App./23/2018
AIRPORT AUTHORITY OF INDIA
CONSTITUTED UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF AIRPORT AUTHORITY OF
Page No.# 18/40
INDIA ACT 1994 (AMENDMENT 2003 ) HAVING ITS OFFICE AT LOKAPRIYA
GOPINATH BORDOLOI INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT REPRESENTED BY
AIRPORT DIRECTOR
LGBI
AIRPORT
GUWAHATI.
VERSUS
MD. AZAD ALI and 8 ORS
R/O VILL. GARAL
MOUZA RAMCHARANI
DIST. KAMRUP
ASSAM
PIN 781017
2:MD. NAUSHAD ALI
R/O VILL. GARAL
MOUZA RAMCHARANI
DIST. KAMRUP
ASSAM
PIN 781017
3:MD. SAHADAT ALI
R/O VILL. GARAL
MOUZA RAMCHARANI
DIST. KAMRUP
ASSAM
PIN 781017
4:MD. SAIFUDDIN ALI
R/O VILL. GARAL
MOUZA RAMCHARANI
DIST. KAMRUP
ASSAM
PIN 781017
5:MD. MUKUT ALI
R/O VILL. GARAL
MOUZA RAMCHARANI
DIST. KAMRUP
ASSAM
PIN 781017
6:MD. RAFIQUE ALI
R/O VILL. GARAL
Page No.# 19/40
MOUZA RAMCHARANI
DIST. KAMRUP
ASSAM
PIN 781017
7:MD. KHURSHED ALI
R/O VILL. GARAL
MOUZA RAMCHARANI
DIST. KAMRUP
ASSAM
PIN 781017
8:THE STATE OF ASSAM
REPRESENTED BY THE SECY. TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM
REVENUE (LR) DEPTT.
DISPUR
GUWAHATI 06
9:THE DIST. COLLECTOR
KAMRUP
ASSAM.
Linked Case : LA.App./9/2023
AIRPORT AUTHORITY OF INDIA
REPRESENTED BY THE COMMERCIAL MANAGER L
LGBI AIRPORT
GUWAHATI.
VERSUS
SRI RAMA KANTA BARUAH and 7 ORS
RESPONDENTS - 1 TO 6
2:BIDYADHAR BARUAH
3:DHRUBA BARUAH
4:ANANTA BARUAH
Page No.# 20/40
5:BHABET BARUAH
6:TILAK BARUAH
ALL ARE RESIDENT OF VILL. GARAL
MOUZA- RAMCHARANI
DIST. KAMRUP
ASSAM
PIN-781017.
7:THE STATE OF ASSAM
REP. BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM
REVENUE LR DEPTT.
DISPUR
GUWAHATI-06.
8:THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR
KAMRUP
ASSAM.
Linked Case : LA.App./54/2018
AIRPORT AUTHORITY OF INDIA
CONSTITUTED UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF AIRPORT AUTHORITY OF
INDIA ACT 1994 (AMENDMENT 2003) HAVING ITS OFFICE AT LOKAPRIYA
GOPINATH BORDOLOI INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT REPRESENTED BY
AIRPORT DIRECTOR
LGBI AIRPORT
GUWAHATI.
VERSUS
SRI KANAK CH DAS and 3 ORS
S/O NOT KNOWN
2:SRI DHUTIRAM DAS
SONS OF NOT KNOWN
ALL ARE R/O VILL. GARAL
MOUZA RAMCHARANI
DIST. KAMRUP
ASSAM.
3:THE STATE OF ASSAM
Page No.# 21/40
REP. BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM
REVENUE LR DEPTT.
DISPUR
GUWAHATI-06.
4:THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR
KAMRUP
ASSAM.
Linked Case : LA.App./2/2020
AIRPORT AUTHORITY OF INDIA
CONSTITUTED UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF AIRPORT AUTHORITY OF
INDIA ACT 1994 (AMENDMENT 2003) HAVING ITS OFFICE AT LOKAPRIYA
GOPINATH BORDOLOI INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT REPRESENTED BY
AIRPORT DIRECTOR
LGBI AIRPORT
GUWAHATI.s
VERSUS
BIMAL BARUAH AND 3 ORS
R/O VILL. GARAL
MOUZA RAMCHARANI
DIST. KAMRUP
ASSAM.
2:PARESH BARUAH
R/O VILL. GARAL
MOUZA RAMCHARANI
DIST. KAMRUP
ASSAM
PIN 781017
3:THE STATE OF ASSAM
REPRESENTED BY THE SECY. TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM
REVENUE (LR) DEPTT.
DISPUR
GUWAHATI-06
4:THE DIST. COLLECTOR
KAMRUP
ASSAM.
Linked Case : LA.App./6/2023
AIRPORT AUTHORITY OF INDIA
Page No.# 22/40
REPRESENTED BY COMMERCIAL MANAGER L
LGBI AIRPORT
GUWAHATI.
VERSUS
MD KASED ALI and 8 ORS
S/O NOT KNOWN R/O VILLGARAL
MOUZA RAMCHARANI
DIST-KAMRUP
ASSAM
2:MD. YASEN ALI
3:MD. NURUL HAQUE
4:MD. MAINUL HAQUE
5:MD. JAIRUL HAQUE
6:MD. ANOWAR HUSSAIN
7:MD. DAUD ALI
S/O NOT KNOWN
R/O VILL. GARAL
MOUZA RAMCHARANI
DIST. KAMRUP
ASSAM.
8:THE STATE OF ASSAM
REPRESENTED BY THE SECY. TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM
REVENUE LR DEPTT.
DISPUR
GUWAHATI-06
9:THE DIST. COLLECTOR
KAMRUP
ASSAM.
Page No.# 23/40
Linked Case : LA.App./36/2017
AIRPORT AUTHORITY OF INDIA
CONSTITUTED UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF AIRPORT AUTHORITY OF
INDIA ACT 1994 (AMENDMENT 2003) HAVING ITS OFFICE AT LOKAPRIYA
GOPINATH BORDOLOI INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT REPRESENTED BY
AIRPORT DIRECTOR
LGBI AIRPORT
GUWAHATI.
VERSUS
MRINMOY BARUAH and 4 ORS
S/O NOT KNOWN R/O VILL. GARAL
MOUZA RAMCHARANI
2:PRADIP KUMAR BARUAH
S/O NOT KNOWN
R/O VILL. GARAL
MOUZA RAMCHARANI
3:MANIRAJ BARUAH
S/O NOT KNOWN
R/O VILL. GARAL
MOUZA RAMCHARANI
4:THE STATE OF ASSAM
REPRESENTED BY THE SECY. TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM
REVENUE (LR) DEPTT.DISPUR
5:THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR
KAMRUP
ASSAM
Linked Case : LA.App./56/2018
AIRPORT AUTHORITY OF INDIA
CONSTITUTED UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF AIRPORT AUTHORITY OF
INDIA ACT 1994 (AMENDMENT 2003) HAVING ITS OFFICE AT LOKAPRIYA
GOPINATH BORDOLOI INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT REPRESENTED BY
AIRPORT DIRECTOR
LGBI AIRPORT
GUWAHATI.
Page No.# 24/40
VERSUS
SRI BHABIT CHANDRA DAS and 2 ORS
S/O NOT KNOWN
R/O VILL. GARAL
MOUZA RAMCHARANI
DIST. KAMRUP
ASSAM
PIN 781017
2:THE STATE OF ASSAM
REPRESENTED BY THE SECY. TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM
REVENUE LR DEPTT.
DISPUR
GUWAHATI-06
3:THE DIST. COLLECTOR
KAMRUP
ASSAM.
Advocate for the Appellants : Mr. R. Dubey, Advocate
Ms. A. B. Kayastha, Advocate
Advocate for the Respondents: Ms. M. D. Choudhury, Advocate
Ms. K. Phukan, Govt. Advocate
Mr. J. Handique, SC, Revenue
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVASHIS BARUAH
Date of Hearing : 28.01.2025
Date of Judgment : 28.01.2025
JUDGMENT AND ORDER (ORAL)
Heard Mr. R. Dubey, the learned counsel for the appellant
in the batch of Appeals. Ms. M. D. Choudhury, the learned
counsel appears on behalf of the respondents; Mr. J. Handique,
Page No.# 25/40
the learned counsel appears on behalf of the Revenue
Department and Ms. K. Phukan, the learned counsel appears on
behalf of the District Collector.
2. Taking into account that vide the impugned common
judgment and award dated 30.05.2015; 49 reference cases were
disposed of in connection with LA Case No.27/1995, this Court
takes up all these Appeals together for final disposal.
3. The land which was acquired in connection with LA Case
No.27/1995 is for the purpose of expansion of the GNB Airport at
Guwahati. In other words, the lands in question were adjacent to
an existing airport. The notification under Section 4 of the Land
Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, 'the Act of 1894') was published
on 16.11.1996 invoking the urgent provisions and subsequently
on 18.11.1996, the declaration was made. This aspect of the
matter assumes importance in as much as the landowners did
not get an opportunity for the purpose of objecting the
acquisition proceedings which is otherwise a statutory right
under Section 5A of the Act of 1894. Thereupon, an award was
passed and the market value of the land being assessed at Rs.1
lakh per bigha. It would be apposite herein to take note of that
the land measurement system in the Brahmaputra Valley of the
State of Assam stipulates that 144 square feet is equivalent to 1
lecha; 20 lechas is 1 katha and 5 katha is 1 bigha. Therefore, the
Page No.# 26/40
market value which was assessed by the Collector in its award
was Rs.20,000/- per katha.
4. The respondents in the present Appeals as claimants being
aggrieved by the inadequacy of compensation submitted
applications under Section 18 of the Act of 1894 claiming that
the compensation so awarded was far too less. It was stated in
their applications that the market value of the said land at that
relevant point of time was Rs.4 lakh per bigha which comes to
Rs.80,000/- per katha. In the said applications seeking reference,
the claimants further mentioned about the characteristics of the
land which were acquired, the future potentiality of the land and
the factors denoting the market sentiments. This aspect is
important in as much as if in the circumstances of this case, this
Court is of the opinion that the singular sale exemplar which was
taken into account in passing the impugned judgment and award
was not the proper exemplar, this Court may have to invoke the
principle of guesstimation. In the reference applications, it was
mentioned that acquired land was situated in an important
location adjacent to the market, schools, hospitals, airport
authority, air force station and various other important
institutions. It was further mentioned that the acquired land had
got great demand for various upliftments by the Governments,
both Central and the State as the acquired land and the
Page No.# 27/40
neighboring lands were free from flood trouble and the value of
the land was going higher from day to day.
5. Upon filing of the said reference applications, the Collector
in terms with Section 19 of the Act of 1894 made the references
to the Court of the District Judge, Kamrup (as it was then). In
terms with Section 20 of the Act of 1894, notices were issued to
both the Collector as well as the Airport Authority of India who
was the beneficiary of the acquisition proceedings.
6. The Collector did not file any objection in the said reference
proceedings. However, the Airport Authority of India had
submitted their objection on 01.06.2013. In the said objection so
filed by the Airport Authority of India, it was mentioned that the
determination of the market value of the acquired land at Rs.1
lakh per bigha, i.e. Rs.20,000/- per katha was rightly assessed. It
was also mentioned that the claimants were further given
additional compensation and solatium at the rate of 30% and
12% on the total valuation. Further to that, it was mentioned
that on 12.09.1997, the certificate of possession was issued. It
was also mentioned that the acquired land was a low lying,
agricultural, barren and abandoned agricultural land on which
the Airport Authority of India had spent huge sum of money for
the development of the land and to make it feasible for extension
of existing runway of the airport. The enhancement of the
Page No.# 28/40
compensation was therefore not tenable as the present state of
development in that area was purely due to the development
work done by Airport Authority of India in that area.
All the reference proceedings were consolidated taking into
account that the acquisition was in respect to the same Land
Acquisition Proceedings being LA Case No.27/1995 and for the
same area.
7. On behalf of the claimants, evidence was adduced by one
Mr. Khasid Ali who was one of the claimants reiterating the stand
taken in the reference applications and further stating that even
though that the land in question was a cultivable land, but the
same was suitable for 'basti' land for the purpose of construction
of houses. It was further mentioned that all the acquired land
around the Airport of Authority of India are highland converted
into 'basti' land. Further to that, the market value of the said
land which was more than Rs.4 lakhs then had at the time of
submission of the evidence on affidavit in the year 2008, shot up
to Rs.20 lakhs per bigha. He further stated that the potentiality
of the acquired land was extremely high as many important
Government as well as private institutions are located within half
a kilometer from the acquired land. Further to that, at the time
of acquisition of the land in the year 1995, Office of the Airport
Authority, schools, colleges, airports, MES Office, markets,
Page No.# 29/40
hospitals etc. were already situated. Further to that, in his
evidence he had exhibited a registered Deed of Sale dated
15.07.1994 which was also exhibited in evidence in connection
with various other reference proceedings and were duly accepted
in evidence and judgments and orders in such reference
proceedings were passed on the basis of the said sale exemplar.
It was further mentioned that the land of the said deponent
along with the land of the other connected reference proceedings
are situated in the same locality under the same notification and
for the same purpose of extension of the runway.
8. The claimants in their evidence apart from exhibiting the
registered Deed of Sale had also exhibited the certified copy of
the judgment and order dated 13.12.2005 in various reference
proceedings as well as the judgment and order dated 03.05.2008
which were in connection with the same land acquisition
proceedings.
9. Neither on behalf of the Collector nor on behalf of the
Airport Authority of India, the said witness was cross-examined.
Further, the Collector as well as the Appellant herein did not
adduce any evidence to substantiate the market value of the
land @ Rs.1,00,000/- per bigha.
10. On the basis of the evidence, the learned Court of the
Page No.# 30/40
Additional District Judge No.1, Kamrup (M) vide the judgment
dated 30.05.2015 came to a finding that the compensation so
awarded was inadequate and therefore enhanced the
compensation to Rs.60,000/- per katha with additional
compensation at the rate of 30% and 12% under Section 23 (1)
(a) and Section 23(2) of the Act of 1894. It was further observed
and directed that the claimants would be entitled to interest on
the excess amount in terms with Section 28 of the Act of 1894.
Being aggrieved, the present Appeals have been filed.
11. Mr. R. Dubey, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of
the appellant, i.e. the Airport Authority of India submitted that
the learned Reference Court while passing the award merely
applied the sale exemplar and passed the said judgment and
order. He submitted that the sale exemplar was in respect to a
'basti' land, whereas the lands which were acquired were
agricultural lands. The learned counsel for the appellants further
submitted that the Sale Deed in question, i.e. dated 15.07.1994
was a sale made in respect of 1 katha of land whereas the
acquisition proceedings was vast area admeasuring 647 bighas 4
lechas of land which was in relation to, two acquisition
proceedings, one of which was LA Case No.27/1995. He,
therefore, submitted that even if the learned Reference Court
had taken into account the sale exemplar, it was the incumbent
Page No.# 31/40
duty of the learned Reference Court also to make appropriate
deductions on account of development costs. In that regard, the
learned counsel has referred to the judgment of the Supreme
Court in the case of Horrmal (deceased) through LRs. & Others
vs. State of Haryana, reported in 2024 SCC OnLine SC 2990.
12. Per contra, Ms. M. D. Choudhury, the learned counsel
appearing on behalf of the respondents submitted that the
compensation so awarded was less than what the claimants had
sought and without taking into consideration that value of such
land was Rs.4 lakh per bigha. The learned counsel for the
respondents further submitted that the sale exemplar so
exhibited being registered Deed of Sale dated 15.07.1994 was
two years prior to the notification issued under Section 4 of the
Act of 1894. She, therefore, submitted that taking into account
the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Mehrawal
Khewaji Trust (Registered), Faridkot & Others vs. State of Punjab
& Others, reported in (2012) 5 SCC 432, there should be an
annual increase at the rate of 12% per annum with the rate, and
accordingly, the correct market value of the land would have
been Rs.86,800/- per katha taking into account that the
notification under Section 4 of the Act of 1894 was issued only
on 16.11.1996. She further submitted that enhancing the
compensation to Rs.60,000/- per katha shows that the learned
Page No.# 32/40
Reference Court has already deducted an amount of 30% on
development costs. Additionally, the learned counsel for the
respondents submitted that there is no question of any
development costs involved in the instant case taking into
account that nothing has been placed on record by the Airport
Authority of India or by the Collector as regards any amount
incurred by them towards the development costs nor they have
till date carried out any development except making a boundary
wall encompassing the entire plots of land acquired. She further
submitted that these lands which have been acquired have great
potentiality taking into account its location and further during
this period, there was a boom in the real estate sector thereby
enhancing the market price of the land. The learned counsel for
the respondents, therefore, submitted that this Court ought not
to interfere with the judgment and order passed by the learned
Reference Court.
13. Ms. K. Phukan, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of
the District Collector has produced award statement and
submitted that the claimants have been paid their compensation
taking into account that the market value of the land was Rs.1
lakh. Nothing further has been placed as to how the District
Collector had arrived at the amount of Rs.1 lakh.
14. Mr. J. Handique, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of
Page No.# 33/40
the Revenue Department of the Government of Assam submitted
that the Revenue Department had been unnecessarily dragged
into the instant proceedings in as much as the said Revenue
Department is not a party to the reference proceedings.
15. I have heard the learned counsels appearing on behalf of
the parties and given my anxious consideration to the relevant
submissions. The materials on record show that neither the
District Collector nor the Airport Authority of India had given any
evidence on the basis of which the District Collector had arrived
at that the market value of the land @ Rs.1 lakh per bigha. Even
in the instant proceedings, the appellant had not taken any steps
for adducing any additional evidence. In the case of Mahesh
Dattatray Thirthkar vs. the State of Maharashtra, reported in
(2009)11 SCC 141, the Supreme Court observed that the burden
of proving the true market value of the acquired land is on the
State that acquired it for a particular purpose. Paragraph Nos.39
to 42 of the said judgment is reproduced herein under:-
"39. We now turn to the issue of sufficiency of evidence adduced by
the appellant to prove its claim of enhancement of compensation. It
is a well-established proposition of law that the burden of proving
the true market value of the acquired property is on the State that
has acquired it for a particular purpose. (See Land Acquisition
Officer & Mandal Revenue Officer v. V. Narasaiah.) It appears from
Page No.# 34/40
the record that the State had only produced a valuer's report of a
government engineer in order to substantiate its claim of market
value, whereas the claimant has produced a valuation report and
sale transaction from which it will appear that the claimant has
successfully proved the market value of the acquired property as
determined by the Reference Court. Therefore, it can be legitimately
concluded that the burden of proving inadequacy of the amount
which lay on the claimant was successfully discharged by him.
40. In Land Acquisition Officer v. Sidappa Omanna Tumari it was
held that a report of an expert for establishing the market value can
be acted upon by the court if "relevant factual data or material
which constituted basis [for] the report is also produced and the
same is proved to be genuine and reliable and the method adopted
by the expert [is] found to be recognised and correct".
41. In this appeal, the report of the engineer engaged by the
appellant to prove the market value of the acquired property is
based on his personal visit to the site of the acquired property, the
map drawn by him after taking the measurements of the acquired
property and the valuation report made by him after deducting the
cost of depreciation. The valuer of the appellant has also submitted
a map as well as the cost of depreciation report and the valuation
report. He has also given details of the dates of his visits to the said
property in 1985. Further, it is not disputed that he has used the
PWD practice and standard engineering norms while deciding the
value of the acquired property. All these factors seem to make the
valuation of the expert valuer worthy of credence, as per the ratio of
Page No.# 35/40
the above stated case.
42. Given that the appellant has been able to show, by the
testimony and valuation report of the expert valuer, that the award
of compensation passed by the Land Acquisition Officer was
inadequate, the onus now shifts on the respondent to adduce
sufficient evidence to sustain the award, as was held clearly in Land
Acquisition Officer v. Sidappa Omanna Tumari. We firmly feel that
the respondent State has completely failed to discharge this burden.
The respondent has been unable to produce any evidence at all to
support its claim of sufficiency of the award and the High Court
judgment, leave alone the question of having adduced sufficient
evidence."
16. In the instant case, it would be seen that both the State as
well as the beneficiary, i.e. the Airport Authority of India have
completely failed to discharge the burden, and therefore, the
conclusion which this Court can arrive at is that the District
Collector as well as the Airport Authority of India have failed to
support the claim of the sufficiency of the award.
17. This Court further finds it relevant to observe that a
compensation so paid to the persons from whom the land have
been acquired is in the nature of a welfare stipulation, and it is
therefore, obligatory upon the appropriate Government to be just
and fair to those whose lands are acquired. It is well settled that
it is not just and fair to deprive the owner of any property
Page No.# 36/40
without payment of its true market value, especially when the
law provides that the same shall be paid. This Court further finds
it relevant to take note of another judgment so referred by the
learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents herein,
i.e. in the case of Mehrawal Khewaji Trust (Registered), Faridkot
& Others (supra) wherein it was observed that it is a general rule
that the highest of the exemplars has to be considered and
accepted if it is satisfied that it is a bonafide transaction. In the
said judgment, it was further made clear that there should be a
12% annual increase to the rates of the land. Paragraph Nos.17
and 20 of the said judgment is reproduced herein under:-
"17. It is clear that when there are several exemplars with reference
to similar lands, it is the general rule that the highest of the
exemplars, if it is satisfied that it is a bona fide transaction, has to
be considered and accepted. When the land is being compulsorily
taken away from a person, he is entitled to the highest value which
similar land in the locality is shown to have fetched in a bona fide
transaction entered into between a willing purchaser and a willing
seller near about the time of the acquisition. In our view, it seems to
be only fair that where sale deeds pertaining to different
transactions are relied on behalf of the Government, the transaction
representing the highest value should be preferred to the rest unless
there are strong circumstances justifying a different course. It is not
desirable to take an average of various sale deeds placed before the
Page No.# 37/40
authority/court for fixing fair compensation.
20. Based on the above principle, we fix the annual increase at 12%
per annum and with that rate of increase, the market value of the
appellants' land would come to Rs 1,82,000 per acre as on the date
of notification."
18. This Court further takes note of that on behalf of the
claimants, evidence have been adduced not only in respect to
the sale exemplar which is the registered Deed of Sale dated
15.07.1994, but also as regards the characteristics of the land,
future potentiality of the land and the factors denoting the
market sentiments which are the guiding principles for applying
the principle of guesstimation. There is no cross-examination of
the witness of the claimants, and therefore, the evidence of the
claimants remains unrebutted.
19. Now the question therefore arises is as to whether under
such circumstances there is a requirement for this Court to
interfere on the aspect of the market value of the land which has
been adjudged by the learned Reference Court. This Court now
finds it relevant to take note of the judgment referred by the
learned counsel for the Appellant in the case of Horrmal
(deceased) through LRs. & Others (supra), wherein the Supreme
Court observed that there is no legal impediment in considering
such Sale Deeds for smaller plots and to identify the most
Page No.# 38/40
suitable Sale Deed for determining the market value and to apply
adequate deduction on the same. It is further observed that in
the case of Himmat Singh & Others vs. the State of Madhya
Pradesh & Another which is the judgment of three Judges of the
Supreme Court, reported in (2013) 16 SCC 392 wherein it was
observed that where there are multiple Sale Deeds available for
consideration the Court shall rely on the highest valued exemplar
unless the prices fall within a narrow range, in which case
calculating an average of the values therein may be more
congruous. It is further observed by the Supreme Court in the
said judgment that while applying the market value on the basis
of a Deed of Sale for a smaller plot of land, an amount of
deduction has to be applied towards development charges when
a huge tract of land is being acquired.
20. This Court cannot give a Nelson's eye to the fact that the
registered Deed of Sale dated 15.07.1994 is in respect to a plot
of land which is 1 katha and comparing the same to a vast tract
of land, i.e. 647 bighas which is around 3200 times bigger, there
is a requirement for applying adequate deduction. The deduction
in such cases depends upon various circumstances depending on
what type of development activities which are required to be
carried out. However, there is no evidence on the part of the
District Collector or the Airport Authority of India in respect to
Page No.# 39/40
the same except stating in the written statement that they had
to fill up the lands which were low lying for the extension of the
airport area. The judicial precedents dictate that the amount of
deduction to be applied towards development charges can range
from anywhere between 20% to 75%. To come to a prudent
course of action, one needs to apply the principle of
guesstimation to arrive at a proper balanced deduction by
recognizing the stark disparity between the site of the land
covered by the sale exemplar exhibited and the unrebutted
evidence of the various advantageous factors associated with the
acquired land. In the opinion of this Court, taking into account
the unrebutted evidence, a prudent course of action might be to
steer a middle path aiming for a range approximately between
35% to 40% as the permissible deductions.
21. In the backdrop of the above, this Court also cannot be
unmindful of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of
Mehrawal Khewaji Trust (Registered), Faridkot & Others (supra)
wherein it has been categorically observed in paragraph No.20 as
already quoted above that there should be an annual increment
by 20%. Therefore, taking into account the exhibited sale
exemplar, the value of the land as on the date of the notification
which is two years post the Deed of Sale would be Rs.86,800/-.
Applying a middle course as stated above, this Court applies a
Page No.# 40/40
deduction of 37.5% on the said amount. Applying the said
deduction, it is the opinion of this Court that the value of the
land comes to around the amount which is closer in the range
granted already by the learned Reference Court.
22. Accordingly, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the
impugned judgment and award and accordingly the said
judgment and award dated 30.05.2015 is affirmed. Accordingly,
the instant batch of Appeals stands dismissed with costs
quantified at Rs.3,000/- per appeal. The claimants would be
entitled to the compensation in terms with the judgment and
award dated 30.05.2015.
23. The records be returned to the Court below.
24. The record which was produced by Ms. K. Phukan is further
returned back to her.
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
