Abul Hussain Laskar vs The State Of Assam And 4 Ors
2025 Latest Caselaw 4874 Gua

Gauhati High Court

Abul Hussain Laskar vs The State Of Assam And 4 Ors on 21 May, 2025

Author: Michael Zothankhuma

Bench: Michael Zothankhuma

                                                                Page No.# 1/9

GAHC010277632018




                      THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
  (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)

                         Case No. : WP(C)/8671/2018

         ABUL HUSSAIN LASKAR
         S/O- LATE ABUL MUSOBBIR LASKAR, VILL AND P.O- BORHAILKANDI PT-
         II, DIST- HAILAKANDI, ASSAM, PIN- 788151



         VERSUS

         THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 4 ORS
         REP. BY COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY, LAND REVENUE, DISASTER
         MANAGEMENT DEPTT, DISPUR, GUWAHATI- 06

         2:THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
          HAILAKANDI
          DIST- HAILAKANDI
         ASSAM
          PIN- 788151

         3:THE CIRCLE OFFICER
          HAILAKANDI
          DIST- HAILAKANDI
         ASSAM
          PIN- 788151

         4:THE POWER GRID CORPORATION OF INDIA LIMITED
          REP. BY ITS ASSTT GM
          BADARPURGHAT
          DIST- HAILAKANDI
         ASSAM
          PIN- 788802

         5:THE ASSTT SETTLEMENT OFFICER
          HAILAKANDI
         ASSAM
                                                                        Page No.# 2/9

             PIN- 78815

Advocate for the Petitioner   : MRS S B CHOUDHURY,

Advocate for the Respondent : GA, ASSAM, SC, REVENUE AND DISASTER MANAGEMENT
DEPT,MR. J HANDIQUE,SR. SC, APGCL,MR. M Z AHMED,MR. A M DUTTA




                                  BEFORE
                HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MICHAEL ZOTHANKHUMA

                                        ORDER

21.05.2025

1. Heard Ms. S.B. Choudhury, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. J. Handique, learned counsel for the respondent nos.1, 2, 3 & 5 and Mr. M.Z. Ahmed, learned Senior Counsel for the respondent no.4 assisted by Mr. A.M. Dutta, learned counsel.

2. The petitioner has prayed for setting aside the Speaking Order dated 14.02.2018, by which it has been stated that no brick kiln was found to be set up in the vicinity or within the range of the line corridor during the execution of foundation and erection of the transmission line tower. As such, no compensation could be given to the writ petitioner for damage of a half done Chimney, which was constructed in an unlawful manner after finalization of route alignment and spot installation of the foundation work of the transmission line, except for surface damage compensation of paddy land as per assessment made.

3. The petitioner's case is that he had established a brick kiln industry over his parental land and for that purpose he had executed a Lease Agreement Page No.# 3/9

dated 10.05.2008 with Ali Ahmed Laskar, which provided for a lease upto December, 2018. Upon establishing the brick kiln industry, the petitioner started operating the same. The respondent Power Grid Corporation of India Limited undertook the construction of 400 KV D/C, Silchar Purbakanchanbari transmission line and for the said purpose, it started erecting towers above the petitioner's brick kiln industry. It is the case of the petitioner that tower location of 22/0 and 23/0 is over the land of the petitioner where the brick kiln industry is located. The petitioner's counsel thus prayed for compensation for the damage caused due to the stringing of the overhead line that had been constructed over the petitioner's land.

4. The petitioner's counsel has taken this Court through the letter dated 11.06.2014 issued by the Circle Officer, Hailakandi, which is to the effect that the Land & Revenue staff had inquired into the issue raised by the petitioner, who reported that the brick kiln industry had suffered damage as it was located at the place the overhead transmission line was strung up. She also relies upon the handwritten letter in vernacular dated 29.08.2014, allegedly issued by the Circle Officer, which is to the effect that upon verification it was found that brick kiln was in existence upon land under Dag No.38 Periodic Patta No.2 measuring 7 Kathas 8 Chataks.

5. The petitioner's counsel submits that subsequent to these letters, the petitioner had filed WP(C) 3211/2014, claiming compensation for the damage caused to the brick kiln, due to the stringing up of the overhead line, over the land of the petitioner. However, WP(C) 3211/2014 was disposed of by a coordinate Bench of this Court by directing the Deputy Commissioner, Hailakandi Page No.# 4/9

to cause an enquiry, to ascertain as to whether the overhead line had passed through the land of the petitioner containing the brick industry, which is stated to be located in the land covered by Dag No. 39, 90, 225, 227 of Patta No.2 Village Barkailakandi and whether any damage had been caused to the petitioner's brick kiln.

6. The petitioner's counsel submits that consequent to the order dated 05.09.2017 passed in WP(C) 3211/2014, the Deputy Commissioner, Hailakandi issued the impugned Speaking Order dated 14.02.2018 holding that no brick kiln was found to be set up in the vicinity or within the range of the line corridor during the execution of foundation and erection of the transmission tower. As such, no compensation could be given to the writ petitioner for damage of a half done Chimney, which was constructed in an unlawful manner, after finalization of route alignment and spot installation of the foundation work of the transmission line.

7. The petitioner's counsel submits that the impugned Speaking Order dated 14.02.2018, not being in consonance with the earlier letter dated 11.06.2014 and letter dated 29.08.2014 issued by the Circle Officer, Hailakandi, the Speaking Order should be set aside and compensation should be paid to the petitioner.

8. The counsel for the respondents on the other hand, submit that despite the letters dated 11.06.2014 & 29.08.2014 issued by the Circle Officer, Hailakandi, this Court had, vide order dated 05.09.2017 passed in WP(C) 3211/2014, directed that an inquiry should be held with regard to the claim of Page No.# 5/9

the petitioner. As the inquiry report had not supported the case of the petitioner as per the Speaking Order dated 14.02.2018, the writ petition should be dismissed. In the alternative, they submit that if the petitioner wants to challenge the correctness of the Speaking Order dated 14.02.2018, he should approach the Civil Court, as disputed questions of facts would be involved.

9. The learned counsel for the respondent no.4 submits that compensation had been assessed for the petitioner, with regard to the surface damage caused, due to the erection of the transmission line, which the petitioner has however refused to accept, despite various communications being sent to the petitioner to collect the said amount. He submits that the compensation that has been assessed for surface damage can always be released to the petitioner, as and when the petitioner approaches the Deputy Commissioner, Hailakandi.

10. I have heard the learned counsels for the parties.

11. The extract of the order dated 05.09.2017 passed in WP(C) 3211/2014 is reproduced hereinbelow, as follows :

"5. In view of such disputed fact raised by the parties, it is directed that the Deputy Commissioner, Hailakandi shall cause an enquiry as to whether the overhead line has passed through the land of the petitioner containing the brick industry, which is stated to be located in the land covered by Dag No. 39, 90, 22 5, 227 of Patta No.2 Village Barkailakandi.

Upon such enquiry being made, which shall be done in the presence of the petitioner as well as concerned officials of the respondent Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd., to be deputed for the purpose, the Deputy Commissioner shall arrive at a conclusion as to whether the overhead line has been constructed over the aforesaid land of the petitioner and also as to Page No.# 6/9

whether the petitioner has suffered any damage. In the event, the Deputy Commissioner arrives at a conclusion that the overhead line has infact been constructed over the land of the petitioner, the respondent Power Grid Corporation shall issue similar notice to that of notice dated 08.04.2013 to be served on the petitioner and upon the same bein g served, the respondent authorities shall make an assessment of the damage that the petitioner may suffer."

12. The impugned Speaking Order dated 14.02.2018 issued in pursuance to the order dated 05.09.2017 passed in WP(C) 3211/2014 is reproduced hereinbelow, as follows :

"Speaking order

Seen & perused the order dated 05/09/17 passed by the Hon'ble High Court in WP(C) No. 3211/2014 & 3547/14 wherein it has been directed to cause an enquiry as to whether the overhead line has passed through the land of the Writ petitioner containing the Brick Industry which is stated to be located in the land covered by dag No. 39, 90, 225 & 227 of Patta No.2 of vill. Borhailakandi. Accordingly the Asstt. Settlement Officer, Hailakandi laws entrusted to furnish report as per direction of the Hon'ble Gauhati High Court.

Also seen the enquiry report submitted by the Asstt. Settlement Officer, Hailakandi vide No. ASO (H) 36/ 2016/23, dated 05/02/18 & No.ASO(H)36/2016/795, dated 1312/2017, it appears that a half done chimney was found during field enquiry over dag No.18 of Patta No.2 of Vill. Borhailakandi Pt.II which was surrounded by paddy field in all sides. There was no other visual evidences found by the Asstt. Settlement Officer, Hailakandi in the spot from which it can be ascertained that there was no Brick Kiln before the stringing of line between tower No.22/0 & 23/0.

Also it appears that the petitioner could not show any document i.e. N.O.C. from the District Administration & consent Page No.# 7/9

from the Pollution Control Board for establishment of Brick Kiln. Only a G.P. Certificate is produced by the petitioner wherein it was mentioned the dag No.39, 90, 225 & 227 of Patta No.2 but as per land record it reveals that there is no dag No. 225, 227 of Patta No.2.

Moreover as per letter No.NEBDP/SIL/PKB/Legal/2017-18/716, dated 02/02/2018 issued by the Chief Manager (AMTL), Power Grid, Badarpur, it reveals that no brick kiln was bound to be set up in the vicinity or within the range of the line corridor during the execution of foundation & erection of the tower. Thus it is evident that the brick kiln was installed after finalization of route alignment & spot installation of foundation work of the transmission line with an unlawful intension to demand compensation.

In view of the above, it is hereby ordered that no compensation can be given to the Writ Petitioner for damage of half done chimney which was constructed in an unlawful manner after finalization of route alignment & spot installation of foundation work of the transmission line except surface damage compensation of paddy land as per assessment made after joint verification by the Asstt. Settlement Officer & Power Grid Official on 13/12/17.

As regards WP(C) No. 3547/14 the assessment report of surface damage submitted by the Asstt. Settlement Officer, Hailakandi after joint verification on 2/11/17 is hereby approved.

Send the assessment report to the Power Grid Corporation for making payment to the writ petitioners.

Inform the parties accordingly."

13. This Court has called for the records of WP(C) 3211/2014 and it is seen that the letter dated 11.06.2014 and handwritten letter in vernacular dated 29.08.2014, issued by the Circle Officer, Hailakandi are also a part of WP(C) 3211/2014. As such, the order dated 05.09.2017 passed in WP(C) 3211/2014, Page No.# 8/9

directing an inquiry to be made for resolving the disputed questions of facts, had taken into account the letter dated 11.06.2014 and the handwritten letter in vernacular dated 29.08.2014, issued by the Circle Officer, Hailakandi. As such, the claim of the petitioner for compensation on the basis of the letters dated 11.06.2014 & 29.08.2014, issued by the Circle Officer, Hailakandi, cannot be accepted due to the impugned Speaking Order having been passed pursuant to the order dated 05.09.2017 in WP(C) 3211/2014. Thus, in view of the judgment and order dated 05.09.2017 passed in WP(C) 3211/2014 and the consequential impugned Speaking Order dated 14.02.2018, the petitioner's prayer for grant of compensation in terms of the representation dated 19.02.2014 cannot be granted.

14. A perusal of the Speaking Order shows that the claim of the petitioner has not been found to be correct, in terms of the inquiry held pursuant to the order passed by this Court in WP(C) 3211/2014. When the petitioner has put to challenge the contents of the Speaking Order, the same amounts to disputing questions of facts recorded in the impugned Speaking Order. This Court is of the view that as the issue raised by the petitioner is not supported by the impugned Speaking Order, the petitioner would have to approach the Civil Court for redressal of his grievance, inasmuch as, evidence would have to be recorded with regard to disputed questions of facts.

15. In view of the reasons stated above, this Court is not inclined to exercise it's discretion in the present case due to disputed questions of facts being involved. Accordingly, the petitioner is given the liberty to approach the Civil Court or any other appropriate Court or forum, where evidence can be recorded, Page No.# 9/9

for redressal of his grievance. The above being said, the compensation assessed for surface damage should be released to the petitioner, if the petitioner approaches the authorities for release of the same.

16. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed.

JUDGE

Comparing Assistant