Gauhati High Court
WA/334/2022 on 27 May, 2025
Page No.# 1/11
GAHC010207422022
2025:GAU-AS:6796-DB
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
1. WRIT APPEAL NO. 333/2022
1. DEEPAK DAMANI, son of Late Omprakash Damani,
resident of Navudit Pharma Services, A.K. Azad Road, Bye
Lane 2, Near Meghalaya House, Rehabari, Guwahati-781008
2. MANIK LAL DAMANI, son of Late Prabhu Dayal Damani,
resident of Sewda Complex, 501, Near Guwahati Gausala,
Chatribari,Guwahati-781008
........ Appellants
-Versus-
1. THE STATE OF ASSAM represented by the Chief Secretary,
Government of Assam, Dispur, Guwahati-6
2. THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY GOVERNMENT TO
THE OF ASSAM, (Revenue Department) Government of
Assam, Dispur, Guwahati-6.
3. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, Kamrup Metropolitan
District, Guwahati-1
4. THE SUB-DIVISIONAL OFFICER (S) I/C Land Acquisition
Officer, Guwahati-1 Dist. Kamrup (M)
5. THE CIRCLE OFFICER, Beltola, Guwahati.
6. THE INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LIMITED, having its
registered office at Indian Oil Bhavan, G-9, Ali Yavar Jung
Marg, Bandra (East), Mumbai -400 051, Maharashtra and is
represented by its Chairman.
7. THE GENERAL MANAGER, INDIAN OIL CORPORATION
LIMITED (IOCL), Noonmati, Guwahati, Kamrup (M), Assam.
8. SHARDA DEVI DAMANI, wife of Late Omprakash Damani,
resident of Block-A, Nirmal Sagar Apartment, Old Post Office
Lane, A.K. Azad Roaad, Rehabari, P.S. Paltanbazar,
Page No.# 2/11
Guwahati-781008
......... Respondents
By Advocates:
For the appellants : Mr. B. Sharma
For the respondents : Mr. M. K. Choudhury, Sr. Adv.
Mr. M. Sarma
Mr. R. Borpujari, SC(Revenue)
Ms. S. Sarma, GA, Assam
2. WRIT APPEAL NO. 334/2022
SHARDA DEVI DAMANI @ SHARDA DEVI MAHESWARI, W/o
Late Omprakash Damani Resident of 1st Floor, Block-A,
Nirmal Sagar Apartment, Rehabari, P.S. Paltan bazaar,
Guwahati-8 in the district of kamrup (M), Assam; aged about
61 years
........ Appellant
-Versus-
1. THE STATE OF ASSAM represented by the Chief Secretary,
Government of Assam, Dispur, Guwahati-6
2. THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY to the Government
of Assam, (Revenue Department) Government of Assam,
Dispur, Guwahati-6
3. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, Kamrup (M) District,
Guwahati-1
4. THE SUB-DIVISIONAL OFFICER (S) I/C Land Acquisition
Officer, Kamrup Metropolitan District, Guwahati-1
5. THE CIRCLE OFFICER, Beltola, Guwahati.
......... Respondents
6. THE GENERAL MANAGER, Indian Oil Corporation Limited
(IOCL), Noonmati, Kamrup (M), Assam. Guwahati,
......... Proforma Respondent
By Advocates:
For the appellant : Mr. G. N. Sahewalla, Sr. Adv.
For the respondents : Mr. M. K. Choudhury, Sr. Adv.
Mr. M. Sarma
Mr. R. Borpujari, SC(Revenue)
Ms. S. Sarma, GA, Assam
Page No.# 3/11
:::BEFORE:::
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. VIJAY BISHNOI
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE N. UNNI KRISHNAN NAIR
Date of hearing : 06.05.2025
Date of Judgment & Order : 27.05.2025
JUDGMENT & ORDER (ORAL)
(N. Unni Krishnan Nair, J.)
Heard Mr. G. N. Sahewalla, learned senior counsel, appearing on
behalf of the appellant in WA No. 334/2022, and Mr. B. Sharma, learned
counsel, appearing on behalf of the appellants in WA No. 333/2022.
Also heard Mr. M. K. Choudhury, learned senior counsel, assisted
by Mr. M. Sarma, learned counsel, appearing on behalf of respondents
Indian Oil Corporation Limited (IOCL); Mr. Rajiv Borpujari, learned standing
counsel, Revenue Department; and Ms. S. Sarma, learned Government
Advocate, Assam; appearing on behalf of their respective respondents.
2. The present intra-Court appeals have been instituted by the
appellants, herein, assailing the common judgment & order, dated
13.09.2022, passed by the learned Single Judge in WP(c)6979/2015 and
WP(c)5956/2016.
3. The brief facts requisite for adjudication of the issue arising in the
present proceeding, is noticed, as under:
The appellant in writ appeal being WA No. 334/2022, by claiming
to be the owner of a plot of land measuring 1-11 Bighas(approximately)
covered by Dag Nos. 406, 407, 408 & 413(old) and Dag No. 3079, 757, as
well as 783(new) of K.P. Patta No. 263(old) & 714 and 1321(new), situated
at village Betkuchi, Mouza-Beltola, Kamrup(Metro) District, which was
Page No.# 4/11
purchased and developed by her, had approached the writ Court by way of
instituting a writ petition being WP(c)6979/2015, inter alia, assailing a
process of acquisition of her land initiated by the respondent authorities
under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, for the purpose of
construction of a petroleum storage terminal of the Indian Oil Corporation
Limited (IOCL) and praying that such acquisition which also included the
land owned by her, should be so carried-out by applying the provisions of
the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition,
Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. The petitioner, therein, had
further prayed in the writ petition, that the compensation has to be so
determined by applying the provisions of the Right to Fair Compensation
and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act,
2013.
The writ appellants in writ appeal being WA No. 333/2022, had
approached the writ Court by way of instituting a writ petition being
WP(c)5956/2016, by raising a grievance that they are having land
contagious to the lands owned by the petitioner in WP(c)6979/2015 and
have ingress and egress to their respective plot of land through the plot of
land of the petitioner in WP(c)6979/2015 and accordingly, they claim to
have been adversely affected by the acquisition proceeding, in question.
The learned Single Judge upon considering the contentions raised
before him by the petitioners, therein, in the above-noted 2(two) writ
petitions as well as the respondents and after perusal of the materials
brought on record before him, was pleased to dismiss both the writ
petitions vide judgment & order, dated 13.09.2022.
Being aggrieved by the said judgment & order, dated 13.09.2022,
the appellants, herein, have instituted the present writ appeals.
Page No.# 5/11
4. This Court while considering the present appeals, was pleased vide
order, dated 10.08.2022, to refer the parties to the proceedings, to
mediation. Accordingly, Hon'ble Mr. Justice B. P. Katakey(retired Hon'ble
Judge of this Court) was identified as the mediator in the matter. The
parties, accordingly, subjected themselves to the process of mediation.
However, the mediation effort undertaken by the mediator in the matter,
resulted in a failure and a report, in this connection, was submitted by the
mediator on 06.11.2023, and therein, it was highlighted that the attempt
by the mediator for resolving the dispute amicably between the parties was
not successful. Accordingly, the above-noted writ appeals were taken-up for
consideration on merits.
5. Mr. Sahewalla, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant
in WA No. 334/2022, at the outset, has submitted that the acquisition of
the land so made, was done in clear violation of the provisions of the Land
Acquisition Act, 1894. The learned senior counsel has further contended
that the objections submitted by the appellant in WA No. 334/2022, was
not considered in the manner required and the Notifications as mandated
under the provisions of Section 6 of the said Land Acquisition Act, 1894,
was not so published. The learned senior counsel has also submitted that
no rozanama or panchnama was prepared while taking possession of the
land, in question, by the authorities of the Indian Oil Corporation Limited
(IOCL), and the said authorities have forcibly taken the possession of the
lands involved which had resulted in violation of the provisions of Section
16 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.
6. Mr. Sahewalla, learned senior counsel, has submitted that before
the learned Single Judge, the aforesaid contentions, more particularly,
relating to the violation of the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894,
Page No.# 6/11
were urged on behalf of the appellant, however, the learned Single Judge
had failed to take into consideration the same. The learned senior counsel
has further submitted that on account of partial acquisition of the land, in
question, access to the rest of the land of the appellant, herein, existing in
the area, has been denied to her. The learned senior counsel has also
submitted that the appellant, herein, was willing and ready to offer the
remaining parcel of the land not acquired in the acquisition proceeding to
the authorities of the Indian Oil Corporation Limited (IOCL), however, an
opportunity in this connection was denied to her.
7. Mr. Sahewalla, learned senior counsel, in support of his
submissions, has relied upon the following decisions of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court rendered in the case of Deepak Pawa & ors. v. Lt.
Governor of Delhi & ors., reported in (1984) 4 SCC 308; Delhi
Development Authority v. Reena Suri & ors. , reported in (2016) 12 SCC
649; Shakuntala Yadav & ors. v. State of Haryana & ors. , reported in
(2016) 13 SCC 233; and Kedar Nath Yadav v. State of West Bengal &
ors., reported in (2017) 11 SCC 601. The learned senior counsel has also
relied upon the decision of the High Court of Madras rendered in the case of
M. Ratanchand Chordia & ors. v. Kasim Khaleeli , reported in (1964) 1 MLJ
293; and the decision of the Kerala High Court of rendered in the case of
Vijayan v. State of Kerala, reported in 2004 3 KerLT 228.
8. Mr. Sharma, learned counsel, appearing for the appellants in WA
No. 333/2022, has adopted the arguments advanced by Mr. Sahewalla,
learned senior counsel for the appellant in WA No. 334/2022. The learned
counsel has further submitted that the manner in which the acquisition was
so made by the authorities, has resulted in access being denied to the
appellants, herein, to the lands possessed by them and accordingly, it was
Page No.# 7/11
required that the Indian Oil Corporation Limited (IOCL) authorities also
acquired the land of the appellants, herein, in WA No. 333/2022.
9. Per contra, Mr. Choudhury, learned senior counsel appearing for
the Indian Oil Corporation Limited (IOCL) authorities, has submitted that
on completion of the process of acquisition of the land involved; the
petroleum storage terminal was set-up and further, for the purpose of
protection of the area, the authorities of the Indian Oil Corporation
Limited(IOCL), have also constructed boundary walls, within the area of the
land so acquired, covering the said terminal.
10. Mr. Choudhury, learned senior counsel, has further submitted that
the compensation due to the land owners whose lands were so acquired
including the appellant in WA No. 334/2022, were duly released by the
authorities of the Indian Oil Corporation Limited (IOCL) to the acquiring
authority. The learned senior counsel has further submitted that there was
no violation of the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, and the
contentions raised by Mr. Sahewalla, learned senior counsel for the
appellant in WA No. 334/2022, in the matter; would not mandate an
acceptance.
11. Mr. Choudhury, learned senior counsel, with regard to the
contentions made by the appellants in WA No. 333/2022, has submitted
that the appellants in WA No. 333/2022, are not the affected parties as no
land of theirs, was acquired in the acquisition proceedings involved.
12. Mr. Choudhury, learned senior counsel, by referring to the common
judgment & order, dated 13.09.2022, impugned in these writ appeals, has
submitted that the contentions raised by the appellants were duly
considered by the learned Single Judge and no error exists with regard to
Page No.# 8/11
the conclusions so drawn in the matter by the learned Single Judge and
accordingly, the impugned judgment & order, dated 13.09.2022, would not
mandate an interference from this Court.
13. We have heard the learned counsels appearing for the parties and
also perused the materials available on record.
14. The decisions relied upon by the learned counsels appearing for
the parties for the appellants have also been duly perused.
15. At the outset, it is to be noted that the submissions made by the
learned counsels appearing for the appellants, herein, are to the effect that
the acquisition proceedings involved in the matter, was so taken to its
logical conclusion in clear violation of the provisions of the Land Acquisition
Act, 1894.
16. It appears that similar submissions were advanced by the learned
counsels for the appellants before the learned Single Judge during the
hearing of the connected writ petitions being WP(c)6979/2015 and
WP(c)5956/2016.
17. The learned Single Judge on consideration of the said submissions,
had concluded that there was no apparent violation of the provisions of the
Land Acquisition Act, 1894, and further, that there was no pleading to that
effect.
18. The conclusions so drawn by the learned Single Judge in the
matter, on this count, being relevant, is extracted hereinbelow:
"21. Nowhere in the pleadings there have been any specific averments regarding
violation of any provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The pleadings are
equally silent on the applicability of Section 49 of the Act 1894. However, in the
subsequent writ petition instituted by two petitioners who are not the affected
persons, certain allegations regarding easement rights through the land which
Page No.# 9/11
has been acquired, have been made.
22. However during the submission, the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners
has taken the plea of violation of the provisions of the Act of 1894. Whether in
absence of pleadings of any kind such submissions can be made at the time of
hearing is itself a debatable issue. Even assuming that the point involves
questions of law and are therefore permitted to be urged, such wavering stands
would be wholly detrimental to the entire case of the petitioner in the first writ
petition being WP(C)/6979/2015 in connection with the prayer made that it is the
Act of 2013 which should prevail and not the Act of 1894. So far as the principal
submission is made, the acquisition proceeding was over even before coming into
force of the Act of 2013 and even otherwise, in a continuing proceeding, there is
no manner of doubt that the enhanced benefits of compensation shall be paid to
the land owner. Further, even though no pleadings regarding violation of the Act
of 1894 has been made, the records produced by Shri Nath, learned Senior
Government Advocate would show that all the mandatory provisions connected
with the acquisition proceedings have been fulfilled and the petitioner in
WP(C)/6979/2015, who is the affected party had chosen not to raise any objection.
In any case, in a case of compulsory acquisition, unless there is violation of the
procedures laid down or the acquisition is bad for lack of bonafide, there is
hardly any scope to challenge the acquisition proceeding per se except to submit
an application for enhancement of the compensation for making a reference.
23. In the instant case, no apparent violation of the provisions of the Act of 1894
is seen apart from the fact that no such pleadings are also there."
19. The learned Single Judge also examined the contentions raised by
the learned counsels for the appellants, herein, before him, with regard to
the violation of the provisions of Section 49 of the Land Acquisition Act,
1894, and on such examination, had drawn the following conclusions:
"24. Though Section 49 of the Act, 1894 was pressed into service, it is only an
option given to the owner to offer the entire land and there is no provision that
such offer has to be accepted and everything depends on the requirement of the
requiring authority which in this case is the IOCL. As noted above, Shri Bhardwaj,
learned Standing Counsel, IOCL in clear terms has submitted that there is no
requirement of any further area for the said purpose.
25. The acquisition in the instant case, is for a public purpose namely for
construction of Petroleum Storage Terminal. The product as well as the activity
associated with the same being hazardous, the acquisition is a paramount
importance for public safety. In that view of the matter also, the acquisition
proceeding cannot be interfered with."
20. On a close perusal of the conclusions drawn by the learned Single
Judge in the judgment & order, dated 13.09.2022, we are of the considered
view that the said conclusions have been so drawn by the learned Single
Judge considering the relevant materials and no perversity exists therein.
Page No.# 10/11
21. The conclusions so drawn by the learned Single Judge being a
plausible one; the same, in our considered view, would not mandate any
interference by this Court.
22. The learned Single Judge with regard to the claim made by the
appellants, herein, in WA No. 333/2022, had drawn the following
conclusion:
"26. As regards the alleged violation of the rights of the two petitioners in
WP(C)/5956/2016, they are not the affected parties of the acquisition proceedings
and to enforce any easement rights, a Writ Court would not be the appropriate
forum."
23. We, on consideration of the said conclusion, are of the considered
view that the learned Single Judge had not committed any error in drawing
the said conclusion and the same being so drawn basing on the materials
available on record; the said conclusion pertaining to the appellants in WA
No. 333/2022, would also not mandate any interference from this Court.
24. A perusal of the conclusions drawn by the learned Single Judge in
the judgment & order, dated 13.09.2022, in WP(c)6979/2015 and
WP(c)5956/2016, would go to reveal that the same was so drawn by the
learned Single Judge relying upon the relevant provisions of law holding the
field and there is no perversity, therein. Further, the view taken by the
learned Single Judge being based on law holding the field; we are of the
considered view that the same is a plausible view and hence, would not call
for any interference in these intra-Court appeals.
25. In this connection, reliance is placed on the decision of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of Airport Authority of India v. Pradip Kumar
Banerjee, reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 232, wherein, it has been held
by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that in an intra-Court appeal, the finding of
Page No.# 11/11
fact of the learned Single Judge, unless such finding is concluded by the
appellate Bench to be perverse, would not be called to be disturbed. It has
been further held that merely because another view or a better view is
possible; there should be no interference with or disturbance of the order
passed by the learned Single Judge unless both sides agree for a fairer
approach on relief.
26. In view of the above discussions, we are of the considered view
that the decisions relied upon by Mr. Sahewalla, learned senior counsel for
the appellant in WA No. 334/2022, would not advance the case of the
appellant, herein, and accordingly, a decision, thereon, is not called for.
27. In view of the above position, we are of the considered view that
the common judgment & order, dated 13.09.2022, passed by the learned
Single Judge in WP(c)6979/2015 and WP(c)5956/2016, would not warrant
any interference.
28. Accordingly, the instant writ appeals are held to be devoid of any
merit and accordingly, the same stands dismissed. However, there shall be
no order as to costs.
JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE
Comparing Assistant
