Page No.# 1/ vs State Of Assam
2025 Latest Caselaw 6877 Gua

Gauhati High Court

Page No.# 1/ vs State Of Assam on 1 September, 2025

                                                                      Page No.# 1/10

GAHC010008952019




                                                             2025:GAU-AS:11785

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

                         Case No. : LA.App./16/2019

         SMTI MALATI RANI SINGHA AND 8 ORS
         - W/O- LATE ABANI KANTA SINGHA, R/O- VILL.- POLARPAR, P.O.
         PALARPAR- 788801, DIST.- HAILAKANDI, ASSAM.

         2: SRI BIKASH SINGHA
          S/O- LATE ABANI KANTA SINGHA
          R/O- VILL.- POLARPAR
          P.O. PALARPAR- 788801
          DIST.- HAILAKANDI
         ASSAM.

         3: SRI ANUPAM SINGHA
          S/O- LATE ABANI KANTA SINGHA
          R/O- VILL.- POLARPAR
          P.O. PALARPAR- 788801
          DIST.- HAILAKANDI
         ASSAM.

         4: SRI JAGDEEP SINGHA
          S/O- LATE ABANI KANTA SINGHA
          R/O- VILL.- POLARPAR
          P.O. PALARPAR- 788801
          DIST.- HAILAKANDI
         ASSAM.

         5: SMTI. MOUSUMI SINGHA
          D/O- LATE ABANI KANTA SINGHA
          R/O- VILL.- POLARPAR
          P.O. PALARPAR- 788801
          DIST.- HAILAKANDI
         ASSAM.

         6: SMTI. RESHMI SINGHA
          D/O- LATE ABANI KANTA SINGHA
                                                                         Page No.# 2/10

             R/O- VILL.- POLARPAR
             P.O. PALARPAR- 788801
             DIST.- HAILAKANDI
             ASSAM.

            7: SMTI. MANOSHI SINGHA
             D/O- LATE ABANI KANTA SINGHA
            W/O- SRI PULOK NANDI
             H/NO. 109
            WARD NO. 2
             JUMBASTI
             P.O. BADARPUR- 788806
             DIST.- KARIMGANJ
            ASSAM.

            8: SMTI. MOUNITA SINGHA
             D/O- LATE ABANI KANTA SINGHA
            W/O- SRI SANKAR MALAKAR
             R/O- VILL.- GANDARMUK
             P.O. DASGRAM-788722
             DIST.- KARIMGANJ
            ASSAM.

            9: SMTI. MONISHA SINGHA DE
             D/O- LATE ABANI KANTA SINGHA
            W/O- SRI JOYJYOTI DE
             SRI PALLI COLLEGE ROAD
             P.O. SILCHAR- 788007
             DIST.- CACHAR
            ASSAM

            VERSUS

            STATE OF ASSAM
            - REP. BY THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, HAILAKANDI DISTRICT, P.O.
            HAILAKANDI- 788801, ASSAM.

            2:THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR
             HAILAKANDI DISTRICT

             P.O. HAILAKANDI- 788801
             DIST.- HAILAKANDI
             ASSAM

Advocate for the Petitioner   : MR. N DHAR, MS. S DASGUPTA,MS. U BARUAH,MR. T U
LASKAR

Advocate for the Respondent : MR. G BORDOLOI GOVT ADV,

Page No.# 3/10

BEFORE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SUSMITA PHUKAN KHAUND

JUDGEMENT AND ORDER (CAV)

Date : 01-09-2025

Heard learned counsel Ms. S. Dasgupta for the appellants and learned Additional Senior Government Advocate Ms. D.D. Barman for the respondent State.

2. The appellants have preferred this appeal under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, challenging the impugned judgment and order dated 07.06.2018 passed by the learned District Judge, Hailakandi, in Misc (L.A.) Case No. 2 of 2007.

3. The genesis of the case is that the Secretary to the Government of Assam, Revenue (LR) Department, Dispur, issued a notification dated 28.11.2003 for acquisition of land belonging to the predecessor of the appellants Late Abani Kanta Singha, situated at village Polarpar, Porgona Hailakandi, district Hailakandi, Assam, appertaining to Dag No. 192(Kha), Dag No. 152 (Ka) and Dag No. 153 (Ka) and Dag No. 193 for the purpose to construct approach road to the bridge over the Pola river, Silchar-Badarpur road (Annexure-1).

4. The Deputy Secretary to the Government of Assam, Revenue (LR) Department, Land Acquisition Branch, Dispur, issued a declaration dated 31.08.2004 under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (the Act of 1894 for short) for acquisition of the aforementioned land ad measuring 14 Kathas situated at village Polarpar, Porgonna Hailakandi, with reference L.A. Case No. 8/1998 in the Office of the District Collector, Hailakandi (Anneuxre-2).

5. The District Collector i.e. the Deputy Commissioner, Hailakandi, thereafter, on 12.10.2004, estimated the probable cost of acquisition of the land with reference declaration dated 31.08.2024 at Rs.11,25,413/- (Rupees Eleven Lacs Twenty Five Thousand Four Hundred and Thirteen) for the purpose of payment of compensation and accordingly, allowed payment of an amount of Rs.38,993.75/- (Rupees Thirty Eight Thousand Nine Hundred Nine Three and Seventy Five Paisa) only, to the appellants as compensation for land calculated @ Page No.# 4/10

Rs.34,000/- (Rupees Thirty Four Thousand) per bigha without the compensation for loss of the trees, buildings etc. situated over the land i.e. Zirat value of the property over the said land. The amount of Rs.7,53,550.75/- (Rupees Seven Lacs Fifty Three Thousand Five Hundred Fifty and Seventy Five Paisa), which was allowed to be paid for compensation for loss of the trees, houses etc. standing over the aforesaid land, and an amount of Rs.2,37,763.35/- (Rupees Two Lacs Thirty Seven Thousand Seven Hundred Sixty Three and Thirty Five Paisa) was estimated to be paid as additional compensation over and above the market value and an amount of Rs.95,105.34/- (Rupees Ninety Five Thousand One Hundred Five and Thirty Four Paisa), was required to be paid in addition to market value of the land @12% in the case of an award i.e. a total of Rs.11,25,413/- (Rupees Eleven Lacs Twenty Five Thousand Four Hundred and Thirteen) as estimated above was further not paid to the appellants.

6. The Office of the Deputy Commissioner, Hailakandi, thereafter, published the Zirat list dated 30.10.2004 for payment of compensation to the predecessor of the appellants for loss of the fishery amounting to Rs.2,24,726/- (Rupees Two Lacs Twenty Four Thousand Seven Hundred and Twenty Six) only, which do not correspond to the earlier estimate dated 12.10.2004 prepared by the Deputy Commissioner, Hailakandi.

7. The Deputy Secretary to the Government of Assam, Revenue (LR) Department, Dispur, vide letter dated 17.02.2025, approved the estimate for forwarding an amount of Rs.11,25,413/- (Rupees Eleven Lacs Twenty Five Thousand Four Hundred and Thirteen) only for acquisition of the land belonging to the predecessor of the appellants/petitioners and other co-pattadars with reference to L.A. Case No. 8/1998.

8. It is submitted that the predecessor of the petitioners/appellants thereafter, submitted an application dated 03.05.2006 before the Deputy Commissioner, Hailakandi in L.A. Case No. 8/1998, inter-alia, stating that the amount estimated for payment of compensation to the predecessor, was not calculated on the basis of the market value of the land which was not less than Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lacs) per bigha during the relevant point of time when the notification dated 21.11.2003 was issued by the authority for acquisition of the land; apart from the fact that there was a fishery situated over the land which was not assessed Page No.# 5/10

correctly and accordingly, an amount of Rs.72,48,006.92 (Rupees Seventy Two Lacs Forty Eight Thousand Six and Ninety Two Paisa), besides the interest was liable to be paid to the predecessor of the appellants/petitioners. The predecessor accordingly requested the Deputy Commissioner to refer the matter to the Court of District Judge, Hailakandi for determination of the market value of the land and for payment of Zirat compensation payable to the predecessor in accordance with law.

9. The Deputy Commissioner accordingly referred the matter regarding the acquisition of land and Zirat compensation including the fishery belonging to predecessor to the Court of District Judge under Section 18 of the Act of 1894. Learned District Judge accordingly registered a Misc (L.A.) Case No. 2/2007 for determination of proper compensation payable to the appellants on the death of their predecessor.

10. The appellants are highly aggrieved and dissatisfied by the impugned judgment and order dated 07.06.2018 passed by the learned District Judge, Hailakandi in Misc (L.A.) Case No. 2/2007.

11. It is submitted on behalf of the appellants that the learned Court erred in law as well as in facts and circumstances of the case, in passing the impugned the judgment and order dated 07.06.2018 as the learned Court ignored the Sale Deed dated 01.02.1998 (Exhibit-1), Sale Deed dated 05.06.1999 (Exhibit-2) and Sale Deed dated 08.09.1995 (Exhibit-5) in determining the compensation as provided under Section 23 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.

12. It is further contended that the learned Court erred in law by ignoring the estimate dated 12.10.2004 and Zirat list dated 30.10.2004 prepared by the authorities and sanctioned by the Deputy Secretary to the Government of Assam (L.R.) Department for payment of compensation of the land. Learned Court has also erred in law by ignoring the letter dated 17.02.2006 issued by the Revenue (L.R.) Department, Government of Assam, ascertaining the value of the land for payment of the compensation. It is further contended that the Court below has ignored the damage caused by the person interested at the time of taking possession of the land under Section 23 of the Act of 1894. It is submitted that the Court Page No.# 6/10

below has passed the impugned judgment and order, which was not in conformity to Section 23 (1A) and Section 23 (2) of the Act of 1894, which resulted in denial of justice.

13. Per contra, learned Additional Senior Government Advocate laid stress in her argument that Annexure-5 of the appeal memo clearly reveals that Rs.12,38,035/- (Rupees Twelve Lacs Thirty Eight Thousand and Thirty Five) was estimated and an award of Rs.11,25,413/- (Rupees Eleven Lacs Twenty Five Thousand Four Hundred and Thirteen) for acquisition of land only, ad measuring 1B-2K-15Ch for construction of the road, was estimated, which reciprocates the submissions that the appellants have been aggrieved as the Zirat along with the pond has been estimated and the Fisheries were excluded.

14. The amount was estimated for 5 (Five) persons for the entire land @ Rs.38,993.75/- (Rupees Thirty Nine Thousand Nine Hundred Ninety Three and Seventy Paisa). The amount was estimated not only for predecessor of the appellants Abani Kanta Singha but the entire land was estimated for 5 (Five) persons.

15. It is further submitted that the learned District Judge has partly allowed the prayer of the appellants and the Collector, Hailakandi was directed to pay Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lac) to the appellants as enhanced compensation @ 9% per annum from the date of the acquisition of the land till the date of payment of the enhanced compensation. The amount has not been awarded only owing to pendency of this case. Rs.2,27,726/- (Rupees Two Lacs Twenty Seven Thousand Seven Hundred and Twenty Six) has been awarded for the fisheries.

16. In reply, it is submitted on behalf the appellants that the Revenue authorities visited the fisheries in the winter season which resulted in the erroneous calculation of the Revenue authorities.

17. This has been rebutted by the respondents stating that PW-2 categorically stated in his evidence that on the acquired land there were 3 RCC Assam type shop houses, 6/7 fruit bearing coconut trees, 20/25 banana trees and a fishery with fishes.

18. I have considered the submissions at the bar with circumspection.

19. It has been held by the learned District Judge that " petition has been substantiated by Page No.# 7/10

the evidence of Bibhash Singha as PW-1 who is the son of original petitioner and the evidence of Mashrof Ali as PW-2. It has been reiterated through the evidence that price of the fishes and the standing trees were not taken into consideration while determining the compensation. The value of the land and the cost of digging the fishery were not assessed properly. PW-1's father laid stress on his claim over the expenses of the damage of his land and the fishery. However, PW-1 could not give the total amount of compensation received by his father. An independent witness PW-2 has substantiated the appellants' claim that there was an existing fishery with fishes in the land acquired by the Government.

It was held by the learned District Judge that the land measuring 0B-13K-8Ch under the ownership and possession of the original petitioner was acquired by the Government vide L.A. Case No. 08/1988 for construction of approach to PMT bridge over river Pola on Silchar- Badarpur road and a compensation of Rs.3,55,960/- (Rupees Three Lacs Fifty Five Thousand Nine Hundred and Sixty) was received by the original pattadar on 27.04.2006 under protest as the value of the land was not less than Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lacs) at the relevant point of time but the Collector had assessed it at Rs.34,000/- (Rupees Thirty Four Thousand) per bigha.

After scrutinizing the written objection submitted by the opposite party, it was held that the Collector fixed the value of the land as per provisions of Section 23(1) of the L.A. Act and form No. 20 depicts that the value of 0B-13K-8Ch was assessed at Rs.22,950/- (Rupees Twenty Two Thousand Nine Hundred and Fifty).

It was held by the learned District Judge that the petitioners/appellants failed to prove by adducing cogent evidence that the value of the land was not less than Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lacs) per bigha. It was held by the Referral Court that the land is situated in village area and was acquired in the year 2003 and therefore, the assessment value of the land was found to be just and reasonable.

It was also held that the digging cost of fishery measuring 4,55,453 cubic feet was assessed at Rs.2,27,726/- (Rupees Two Lacs Twenty Seven Thousand Seven Hundred and Twenty Six) @ Rs.500/- (Rupees Five Hundred) per thousand cubic feet and after taking into Page No.# 8/10

consideration the submissions of the Revenue authority, it was held that the assessment was properly made under the provisions of Section 23(1) of L.A. Act and as per the implied principles of Executive Rules 87 of Government of Assam and thus, in comparison to the area of the fishery, the digging cost of Rs.2,27,726/- (Rupees Two Lacs Twenty Seven Thousand Seven Hundred and Twenty Six) @ Rs.500/- (Rupees Five Hundred) per thousand cubic feet was found to be reasonable and justified. It was also held that the petitioners/appellants could not prove that they had spent more money than that was awarded while digging the fishery.

It was also held by the Referral Court that if the value of the fishes as quoted by the petitioners/appellants is taken into account and if it is assessed that Rs.2.5 Lacs of fishes are produced in the fishery and the price of per fish is taken as Rs.5/- (Rupees Five), the amount of compensation for fishes would round up as Rs.12,50,000/- (Rupees Twelve Lacs and Fifty Thousand) . The opposite party admitted the existence of fishery and awarded Rs.2,27,726/- (Rupees Two Lacs Twenty Seven Thousand Seven Hundred and Twenty Six) towards the cost of digging but no compensation was awarded for the loss of fishes. It was also held that the opposite party admitted through their written statement that the petitioner used to cultivate every year on seasonal basis and if that be so, the petitioner would certainly be entitled to adequate compensation for the loss of fishes which he would have earned in the following year.

Learned Referral Court has also taken into consideration that during joint inspection, no water and fishes was found in the fishery and as such, compensation was not awarded for the loss of fishes. However, it was held that the existence of fishery would certainly entitle the petitioner to cultivate fishes every year.

Learned Referral Court has also taken into account that on joint inspection, the opposite party found no water and fishes in the fishery and thus, it was held that during the dry season in the month of March, it cannot be expected that there would be fishes in the fishery and water in the pond. Thereby, considering the calculation given by the petitioner to be an exorbitant amount, the Referral Court has brought down the compensation to Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lac) after considering the length, breadth and depth of the Page No.# 9/10

fishery.

The Referral Court did not interfere with the compensation awarded by the Collector under the following heads :-

       "For land                          : Rs. 22,950/-

       For others                         : Rs.2,27,726/-

       Addl. Compensation u/s 23(2)       : Rs. 75,202/-

       Solatium u/s 23(1-A)               : Rs. 30,000/-"

20. I have scrutinized the original record and I have also considered the submissions.

21. The point for determination in this case is :

"Whether the learned Referral Court has erred in passing the impugned order?"

22. I find force in the argument of the learned counsel for the appellants. It has been correctly held by the learned Referral Court after an in-depth discussion that the Revenue authorities ought to have assessed the computation for the fishes as during winters, the water bodies in this part of the country usually dries up and one cannot expect to find any fishery brimming with fishes and water in the months of February and March.

23. The Revenue authorities have admitted that the appellants' land was a part of the alleged fishery ad measuring 38,565 sq. ft. in area and 11.81 ft. in depth and the appellants used to breed fishes every year on seasonal basis i.e. during the month of April/May to September/October. Therefore, it has been correctly held by the learned Referral Court that the inspection was conducted during the dry season/off-season. On a lump sum assessment, the rearing of fishes was estimated at Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lac).

24. I find substance in the argument of the learned counsel for the appellants that the assessment has been much under valued considering the area and depth of the fishery described by the Revenue authorities themselves. Thereby, this Court deems it appropriate to direct the Revenue authorities i.e. the respondents to assess the rearing and cultivation of Page No.# 10/10

fishes (pisciculture) as per their own estimate on the basis of which, they have paid the compensation for acquisition of the appellants' land. The Revenue authorities i.e. the respondents are directed to assess the cultivation and rearing of fishes in a pond, which area is around 38,565 sq. ft., and depth is around 11.81 ft., according to the rates under which they have estimated the compensation of Rs.11,25,413/- (Rupees Eleven Lacs Twenty Five Thousand Four Hundred and Thirteen) for the acquisition of 1B-2K-15Ch of land as per their letter No. RLA.115/99/71 dated 17.02.2006.

25. The decision of the Referral Court is hereby modified in terms of the above observation.

26. Send back the original records to the Referral Court.

27. No order as to costs.

JUDGE

Comparing Assistant