Page No.# 1/7 vs The District Commissioner
2025 Latest Caselaw 7803 Gua

Gauhati High Court

Page No.# 1/7 vs The District Commissioner on 15 October, 2025

                                                              Page No.# 1/7

GAHC010223822025




                                                        2025:GAU-AS:13903

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

                         Case No. : CRP(IO)/429/2025

         HARESHWAR BORAH AND ANR
         S/O LT. KAMALESWAR BORAH, RESIDENT OF LAOKHUWA ROAD, NORTH
         HAIBORGAON, NAGAON TOWN, P.O AND P.S- NAGAON, DISTRICT-
         NAGAON, ASSAM, PIN- 782002

         2: SMTI MADHUMITA BORAH
         W/O HARESWAR BORAH
          RESIDENT OF LAOKHUWA ROAD
          NORTH HAIBORGAON
          NAGAON TOWN
          P.O AND P.S- NAGAON
          DISTRICT- NAGAON
         ASSAM
          PIN- 78200

         VERSUS

         THE DISTRICT COMMISSIONER, NAGAON AND 3 ORS.
         ASSAM, PIN- 782001

         2:THE SECRETARY
          GOVT OF INDIA (UOI)
          MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS
          ROOM NO 113
          NORTH BLOCK
          NEW DELHI- 110 001

         3:THE DIRECTOR GENERAL
          CENTRAL RESERVE POLICE FORCE
          BLOCK NO 1
          C.G.O. COMPLEX
          LODHI ROAD
          NEW DELHI- 110 001
                                                                        Page No.# 2/7

            4:THE COMMANDANT
             34 BN CRPF
             CAMP- KATIMARI
             DISTRICT- NAGAON
            ASSAM
             PIN- 782 00

Advocate for the Petitioner   : PETITIONER IN PERSON,

Advocate for the Respondent : GA, ASSAM, DY.S.G.I.




                                   BEFORE
                 HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MRIDUL KUMAR KALITA

                                         ORDER

15.10.2025

1. Heard Mr. Hareshwar Borah and Ms. Madhumita Borah, petitioners, who appeared before this Court in person. Also heard Mr. R.K.Dev Choudhury, the learned Deputy Solicitor General of India appearing on behalf of the respondent Nos. 2,3 and 4. Also heard Ms. D.D. Barman, the learned Additional Senior Government Advocate appearing for the respondent No.1.

2. This application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioners, impugning the orders dated 03.04.2025, 30.05.2025, 03.07.2025, 07.08.2025 and 29.08.2025 passed by the "Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Authority", Nagaon in Ref.(LA) Case No. 1 of 2018.

3. The facts relevant for consideration of the instant revision application are that the petitioners' land measuring about 80 bighas was acquired by the Government and the Deputy Commissioner, Nagaon assessed the compensation amount of Rs. 9,69,60,000/- to be paid to the petitioners' for acquiring the aforesaid land.

Page No.# 3/7

4. The petitioners' preferred a reference before the learned District Judge-cum- Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Authority", Nagaon in Ref.(LA) Case No. 1 of 2018.

5. By the judgment and award dated 25.02.2022, passed in Ref.(LA) Case No. 1 of 2018, the learned District Judge-cum- Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Authority", Nagaon enhanced the compensation amount for acquisition of the afore stated land to Rs. 338 Crores. The Deputy Commissioner preferred an appeal before this Court which was registered as LA Appeal Case No. 11 of 2022. The said appeal was dismissed by judgment dated 24.01.2023.

6. Being aggrieved, the Union of India, on behalf of the CRPF (the beneficiary of the acquisition proceedings) preferred a SLP (C) No. 28501-28502 of 2024 before the Apex Court.

7. The Apex Court, by order dated 25.02.2025, had set aside the award passed by the Reference Court as well as the Judgment of this Court, passed in L.A.Appeal Case No. 11 of 2022 on 24.01.2023 and the Ref.(LA) Case No. 1 of 2018 was remanded back to the Reference Court with a direction that the present petitioners' shall be given opportunity to file an affidavit in support of their claim with relevant averments and documents. Further, the Union of India and CRPF shall then be invited to file their objections if any. The Apex Court further observed that upon granting reasonable and adequate opportunity to all parties, including the Union of India and CRPF to adduce evidence, in support of their respective stand, fresh awards shall be made.

8. It was further observed that the compensation as assessed by the Deputy Commissioner and paid to the present petitioners' shall not be reduced.

9. The petitioners appearing in person has submitted that they are aggrieved by the fact that the Reference Court did not afford them any Page No.# 4/7

opportunity to file affidavit, in pursuant to the directions of the Apex Court. It is also submitted by them that the Director General of CRPF was not made a party and no issues were framed in respect of the observations made by the Apex Court in the afore stated judgment in respect of letters 02.09.2013, 28.08.2015, 24.09.2015 and 19.12.2015, which the petitioners' contend that same were obtained under coercion and duress.

10. On the other hand, the learned Deputy Solicitor General of India, Mr. R.K.Dev Choudhury has submitted that the petitioners' have filed the instant application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India without their being any occasion for doing so. He submits that the Apex Court has in the aforesaid order dated 25.02.2025 had only made an observation to give reasonable and adequate opportunity to all the parties, including the Union of India and the CRPF to file their objections as well as adduce evidence before the Reference Court and accordingly, on receipt of notice from the Reference Court, the Union of India and the CRPF are duly represented before the Reference Court.

11. He also submits that the Apex Court categorically observed in Paragraph No. 9 of the aforesaid order that it did not find any averment on record that the afore stated letters were obtained under coercion and duress. However, it made an observation that as to whether the said letters/representation were obtained under coercion and duress are matters which needs to be proved before the Reference Court by adducing evidence.

12. I have considered the submissions made by the petitioners' appearing in persons as well as the learned counsel for the respondents. I have also gone though the materials available on record, including the impugned orders.

13. On perusal of records, it appears that by order dated 03.04.2025, passed in Ref.(LA) Case No. 1 of 2018, the Reference Court issued notice to all Page No.# 5/7

the respondents, including the Union of India as well as the CRPF and directed the present petitioner's to take steps for issuance of notice on the respondents. This Court finds no irregularity or illegality in the aforesaid order.

14. In order dated 30.05.2025, it has been reflected that the CRPF represented by the Commandant, 34, CRPF Battalions Katimari, Nagaon entered its appearance through the Deputy Solicitor General of India. The Deputy Solicitor General of India also represented the Union of India before the Ref. (LA) Case No. 1 /2018.

15. Though in the said order, the Deputy Commissioner, Nagaon has been referred to as District Magistrate, however, same may not be regarded as an irregularity which cannot be rectified by the Reference Court and which would require invoking of supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 by this Court. It, however, appears that though the Apex Court directed to give an opportunity to the present petitioners' to file an affidavit in support of their claim with relevant reference and documents. The order dated 30.05.2025, has without doing so directed the Union of India and CRPF to file written objection.

16. It also appears that though by order dated 29.08.2025, the Reference Court directed the present petitioners' to file affidavit, along with relevant documents as well as draft issues, before the said Court, by a prior order, which was passed on 03.07.2025, the Reference Court had fixed 07.08.2025 for filing the draft issues and hearing all issues. Though the sequence in which the Reference Court directed the petitioners' to file affidavit after fixing the case for filing of draft issues may not be proper, but it does not require invoking of powers under 227, as by order dated 29.08.2025, the Reference Court again fixed 25.09.2025 for filing affidavit by the petitioners', along with relevant documents as well as for draft issues.

Page No.# 6/7

17. It is a settled proposition of law that powers under the supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is to be exercised sparingly and only in appropriate cases, where judicial conscience of High Court dictates it to act, lest a gross failure of justice or grave injustice should occur.

18. .In the case of "Shalini Shyam Shetty Vs. Rajendra Shankar Patil" reported in "(2010) 8 SCC 329," the Apex Court has observed that, that the High Courts cannot, on a drop of hat, in exercise of its power of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution, interfere with the orders of Tribunals or Courts, inferior to it. Nor can it, in exercise of its power, act as a Court of appeal over the orders of the Court or Tribunal subordinate to it, in cases where the alternate statutory mode of redress has been provided, that would also operate as a restraint on the exercise of this power by the High Court.

19. In the instant case, the issues are yet to be framed by the Reference Court. However, it appears that the petitioners', in pursuant to the order dated 29.08.2025, had not filed any affidavit and supporting documents before the Reference Court, in spite of clear direction to do so by the Reference Court.

20. As regards the petitioners' contentions regarding misplacing of the records of L.A. Case No. 37/2013 and 326 pages of missing documents from the Ref.(LA) Case No. 1 /2018, it appears that the Reference Court had already initiated an inquiry to that effect. Further, the records of L.A. Case No. 37/2013 are again called for from the office of the Deputy Commissioner, Nagaon.

21. As discussed in the foregoing paragraphs, this Court is of the considered opinion that it is not a fit case to invoke the supervisory powers of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India by interfering with the impugned orders, and hence, this Court dismisses the instant civil revision petition.

Page No.# 7/7

However, the Trial Court is directed to give a further opportunity to the petitioners for fling the affidavit in the Ref.(LA) Case No. 1 /2018, in terms of the observations made by the Apex Court in the order referred in the foregoing paragraphs of this order, and if it comes out in pleading that the letters dated 02.09.2013 and three other letters were obtained under coercion and duress, the Reference Court at the time of framing the issues in the Reference Case shall also frame any issue in respect of the aforesaid letters.

22. The Ref.(LA) Case No. 1 /2018, shall be disposed of as expeditiously as possible in terms of the directions issued by the Apex Court in the afore referred order dated 25.02.2025.

23. This Civil Revision Petition (I/O) is accordingly disposed of.

JUDGE

Comparing Assistant