[Cites 3, Cited by 0]
Gauhati High Court
Page No.# 1/5 vs The State Of Assam And 6 Ors on 19 February, 2026
Author: Sanjay Kumar Medhi
Bench: Sanjay Kumar Medhi
Page No.# 1/5
GAHC010027862015
undefined
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : WP(C)/7676/2015
MONIR UDDIN BARBHUIYA and 5 ORS.
S/O LT. JUNAB ALI BARBHUIYA
2: JAMIR UDDIN BARBHUIYA
3: AZIR UDDIN BARBHUIYA
4: FORASH UDDIN BARBHUIYA
5: FAKHAR UDDIN BARBHUIYA
6: HILAL UDDIN BARBHUIYA
ALL ARE S/O LT. FAYJUR RAHMAN BARBHUIYA
ALL ARE R/O RONGPUR PT.III
P.O. SAHABAD
P.S. KATLICHERRA
DIST- HAILAKANDI
ASSA
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 6 ORS
TO BE REP. BY THE PRINCIPAL SECY./SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF
ASSAM, IRRIGATION DEPTT., DISPUR, GHY-6
2:THE UNDER SECY. WORKS TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM
IRRIGATION DEPTT.
CHANDMARI
GHY-3
Page No.# 2/5
3:THE CHIEF ENGINEER
IRRIGATION DEPTT.
CHANDMARI
GHY-3
4:THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
HAILAKANDI DIVISION IRRIGATION
DIST- HAILAKANDI
ASSAM
5:THE DY. COMMISSIONER
HAILAKANDI
P.O.
P.S. and DIST- HAILAKANDI
ASSAM
6:THE COMMISSIONER and SECY. TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM
REVENUE L.R. DEPTT.
DISPUR
GHY-6
7:THE UNDER SECY. TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM
REVENUE L.R. DEPTT.
L.A. BRANCH
DISPUR
GHY-
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. S ROY, MR. B K DAS,MR. M H LASKAR
Advocate for the Respondent : MR. N UPADHAYAY (SC, IRRIGATION DEPT.), MR. B J
TALUKDAR, SC, REVENUE DEPARTMENT,MR. J HANDIQUE,GA, ASSAM
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR MEDHI
ORDER
19.02.2026
The approach to this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
has been made with the following prayer:
"In the premises aforesaid, it is therefore most respectfully prayed that
Your Lordships may graciously be pleased to admit this petition, call for
Page No.# 3/5
the records, issue rule calling upon the respondents to show cause as to
why:
a) a writ in the nature of mandamus should not be issued directing
the respondent authorities, particularly the Respondent No. 2 & 3,
to initiate fresh proceedings for acquisition of lands of the
petitioners in accordance with The Right to Fair Compensation and
Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement
Act, 2013 as per their present requirement;
b) a writ in the nature of mandamus should not be issued directing
the respondent authorities to determine the amount of adequate
compensation afresh against acquisition of the lands of the
petitioners in accordance with The Right to Fair Compensation and
Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement
Act, 2013 and to pay the same to the petitioners in a time bound
manner for the quantum of land already under use of the
department including the compensation for continued occupation
since 1985;
c) a writ in the nature of mandamus should not be issued directing
the respondent authorities to give back/return the unused portion of
the acquired lands presently not in use of the department as the
same is not required for any public purpose by way of de-requisition
as per law.
and/or
d) Pass any such other or further order or orders as this Hon'ble
Court may deem fit and proper in the interest of justice and under
Page No.# 4/5
the facts and circumstances of the case.
AND
Upon perusal of the records and hearing the parties, the Rule may
be made absolute."
2. As per the facts projected, the petitioners are the owners of certain
agricultural land measuring 5 bighas in village Sahabad in the district of
Hailakandi. The aforesaid land was the subject matter of acquisition in a process
initiated in the year 1983. However, due to some technicalities, the initial
estimate was lapsed and thereafter, fresh estimate was made. The purpose for
the acquisition was for construction of an Office of the Irrigation Department. It
is the case of the petitioners that while the land was acquired, only 50% of the
land has been utilized for the purpose of construction of the Office and 50% is
remaining unused. The compensation amount has also not been finally assessed
and paid.
3. I have heard Shri MH Laskar, learned counsel for the petitioners. I have
also heard Shri SS Roy, learned State Counsel and Shri N. Upadhyay, learned
Standing Counsel, Irrigation Department.
4. Shri Laskar, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioners
are legally entitled for the due compensation in accordance with law and the
land being acquired in the year 1983, non-release of the same has caused
immense hardships. He has also contended that since only 50% of the land
which was the subject matter of acquisition has been utilized, the rest 50%
should be returned to the petitioners. In this connection, he has referred to the
provisions of Section 101 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in
Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013.
Page No.# 5/5
5. Both Shri Roy, learned State Counsel and Shri Upadhyay, learned Standing
Counsel, Irrigation Department have submitted that there is no dispute to the
aspect of acquisition of land which was for a public purpose, namely, for the
construction of an Office for the Irrigation Department. It is also submitted that
due to some technical lapse, the initial estimate could not be brought to a
logical conclusion. However, in the year 2025, a fresh process for assessment
has been taken up.
6. Shri Laskar, learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that his
clients are also aware of the fresh process which has been initiated in the year
2025.
7. Since, there is no dispute in the Bar that a fresh process has been initiated
for assessment of the compensation, this writ petition is disposed of by directing
the completion of the process expeditiously and preferably within a period of 90
days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. Apart from
assessing the compensation, a Speaking Order is also required to be passed on
the aspect of the portion of land which according to the petitioners has
remained unutilized.
8. It is needless to add that the petitioners, if aggrieved by adequacy or
otherwise of the compensation would have the right to approach the
appropriate forum under the law.
9. The writ petition accordingly stands disposed of.
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
