Hoograjuli (Assam) Tea Company Ltd vs The State Of Assam And 6 Ors
2026 Latest Caselaw 1674 Gua

Gauhati High Court

Hoograjuli (Assam) Tea Company Ltd vs The State Of Assam And 6 Ors on 26 February, 2026

Author: Devashis Baruah

Bench: Devashis Baruah

                                                                  Page No.# 1/9

GAHC010019002025




                                                          undefined

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

                            Case No. : WP(C)/704/2025

         HOOGRAJULI (ASSAM) TEA COMPANY LTD.
         NICCO HOUSE, 4TH FLOOR, 7 CHURCH LANE, KOLKATA-700001,
         REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR MANISH KANOI.



         VERSUS

         THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 6 ORS.
         REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM,
         REVENUE AND DISASTER MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT, DISPUR,
         GUWAHATI-6.

         2:COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT OF ASSAM
          PW DEPARTMENT
          DISPUR
          GUWAHATI-6.

         3:DISTRICT COMMISSIONER
          SONITPUR
         TEZPUR
          PIN- 784001 CUM CHAIRMAN D.L.L.P.C.

         4:ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COMMISSIONER
          (REVENUE CUM MEMBER SECRETARY) SONITPUR
         TEZPUR
          PIN- 784001.

         5:EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
          PWD BARSALA AND DHEKIAJULI DIVISION
          DHEKIAJULI
          PIN- 784110.

         6:CIRCLE OFFICER
                                                             Page No.# 2/9

          DHEKIAJULI REVENUE CIRCLE
          P.O. DHEKIAJULI
          SONITPUR
          ASSAM
          PIN- 784110.

          7:M/S ANIL- SAILAJA (JV)
           C/O- ANIL DAS
           BARNIL TOWER
           MIRZA-PALASHBARI ROAD
           P.O. MIRZA
           PIN- 781125
           KAMRUP
          ASSA

For the Petitioner(s)    : Mr. P. Mahanta, Advocate

For the Respondent(s) : Mr. H. Sarmah, Addl. Sr. GA
                        Mr. J. Handique, SC, Revenue
                        Ms. M. Das, SC, PWD
                        Mr. K. Bhuyan, Advocate


                             BEFORE
              HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEVASHIS BARUAH
                            ORDER

26.02.2026

Heard Mr. P. Mahanta, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner. Mr. H. Sarmah, the learned Additional Senior Government Advocate appears on behalf of the respondent State; Mr. J. Handique, the learned counsel appears on behalf of the Revenue Department; Ms. M. Das, the learned counsel appears on behalf of the PWD and Mr. K. Bhuyan, the learned counsel appears on behalf of the respondent No.7.

Page No.# 3/9

2. The petitioner herein is aggrieved by the action on the part of the Respondent Authorities in taking over the possession of the petitioner's land in the garb of doing so in terms with the "Land Acquisition through Direct Purchase by way of Negotiated Settlement for all Departments in the State of Assam" (hereafter referred to as 'the Scheme') and more particularly after having agreed to pay an amount of Rs.5,84,81,029.50p, which was the negotiated settlement and now proposing to pay an amount of Rs.2,73,03,174/-

3. Mr. P. Mahanta, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the action on the part of the Respondent Authorities is not only contrary to the Scheme, i.e. "the Land Acquisition through Direct Purchase by way of Negotiated Settlement for all Departments in the State of Assam", but it is also a fraudulent exercise of power by the Respondent Authorities. Referring to the Scheme, which was notified on 11.03.2022, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that a negotiation has to be recorded as per an agreement which is to be in Form B and Form C for the landowners and for interested persons other than landowners respectively. In addition to that, an undertaking has also to be given by the landowners and/or the interested persons that they would not claim for payment of higher compensation in any Court of law.

Page No.# 4/9

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner referring to Annexure-5 to the writ petition wherein collectively various agreements in Form B1 and Form C have been enclosed which were entered into by and between the petitioner as well as the concerned Respondent Authorities submitted that the total amount was agreed to in respect to 39 bighas of land was Rs.5,84,81,029.50p. The learned counsel further submitted that it was obligatory on the part of the State to not only honour the said agreement but also act in consonance with the notification dated 07.03.2022 which was gazetted on 11.03.2022.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that a perusal of the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the respondent No.4 would show that there are no allegations of fraud committed by the officials of the respondents at the time of entering into such agreements. The learned counsel for the petitioner therefore submitted that if the respondents are not agreeable in terms with the notification dated 07.03.2022 which was gazetted on 11.03.2022, the respondents would be bound to either have to return the land back to the petitioner after paying due compensation to the loss suffered by the petitioner on account of the various tea bushes which were completely destroyed or to go ahead with a fresh acquisition in terms with Step 17 of the Notification dated 07.03.2022 which was gazetted on 11.03.2022.

Page No.# 5/9

6. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the very perusal of the Scheme would show that the settlement has to be arrived at on the basis of negotiation and mutual consent and upon mutual consent, it was agreed that the total compensation would be Rs.5,84,81,029.50p and not the amount which is now being offered as Rs.2,73,03,174/-.

7. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that in the meantime, for the last three years, not a single penny has been received by the petitioner, which violates the mandate of Article 300A of the Constitution, which is akin to a human right.

8. Per contra, Mr. H. Sarmah, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents submitted that though admittedly there was a negotiated settlement and agreements were entered into in Form B-1 and Form C in respect to the 39 bighas of land, and further that the possession of the land was taken as far back in the year 2023, but upon a re-survey it was found that the amount of compensation which was agreed upon to pay to the petitioner was Rs.2,73,03,174/-. He submitted that if the acquisition was carried out in terms with the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (for short, 'the Act of 2013'), the compensation which the petitioner would have been entitled to was only Rs.2,73,03,174/-. He further submitted that there is no stopping for the petitioner to accept the Page No.# 6/9

amount of Rs.2,73,03,174/- provided the petitioner submits the necessary documents in that regard.

9. Rejoining to his earlier submissions, Mr. P. Mahanta, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that if the petitioner seeks disbursement of the amount of Rs.2,73,03,174/- which was unfairly and unjustly calculated and contrary to the negotiated settlement, the petitioner's writ petition would become infructuous and further all rights and claims of the petitioner to get the amount which was agreed upon would be rendered otiose. He further submitted that the petitioner herein is entitled to interest at the rate of 9% for the first year after the possession has been taken and thereupon 15% on the amount which was agreed upon.

10. This Court has duly heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties and given an anxious consideration.

11. The materials on record more particularly Annexure-5 clearly shows that there was a negotiated settlement as to the amount payable to the petitioner in terms with the Scheme and as per the negotiated settlement, the total entitlement of the petitioner was Rs.5,84,81,029.50p. However, it also prima facie appears from the materials on record that the respondents herein now have made a 180 degree somersault to the promises so made to pay the petitioner the amount as per the negotiated settlement and now are offering an amount of Rs.2,73,03,174/-.

Page No.# 7/9

12. This Court has also taken note of the contents of the Scheme and more particularly Clause 5 of the Scheme which stipulates that the land value under the Scheme has to be fixed as per the negotiation and mutual consent, and if there is no mutual consent, the acquisitions be carried out as per law. Under such circumstances, the respondents in the opinion of this Court, has three options:-

(a) Pay as per the negotiated settlement; or

(b) Go ahead with a fresh acquisition of the land as per the Act of 2013 or any other applicable provisions of law, but determining the compensation as per the Act of 2013; or

(c) Return the land back to the petitioner along with compensation for occupation of the land and the damages so suffered by the petitioner on account of uprooting of the tea bushes.

13. This Court therefore grants an opportunity to the State Government to reassess the aforesaid three options and apprise this Court on the next date.

14. This Court also duly takes note of that the possession of the land of the petitioner was taken in the year 2023. This was done so even prior to the negotiated settlement. In terms with the Act of 2013, the power to take possession of the land prior to passing any award can be traced to Section 40 of the Act of 2013 and Sub-

Page No.# 8/9

Section (3) of Section 40 of the Act of 2013 mandates advance payment of 80% of the amount.

15. This Court had also given an anxious consideration to the submission so made by Mr. H. Sarmah, the learned Additional Senior Government Advocate that the petitioner can very well collect the amount of Rs.2,73,03,174/- by submitting the necessary documents as sought for.

16. Mr. P Mahanta, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, on the other hand, has contended that if the documents which have been sought for is submitted, the petitioner's entire claim in terms with the negotiated settlement would stand waived.

17. Under such circumstances, it is the opinion of this Court that in order to arrest any further accrual of the interest on the amount of Rs.2,73,03,174/- which has been already determined by the Respondent Authorities, liberty should be given to the petitioner for withdrawal of the said amount under protest and without prejudice to the instant proceedings.

18. Accordingly, this Court therefore grants liberty to the petitioner herein to file appropriate application before the respondent No.3 claiming the amount of Rs.2,73,03,174/- which the respondents have already determined to be the appropriate compensation without prejudice to the claims made in the instant writ petition as well as under protest.

Page No.# 9/9

19. It is observed that if such application is filed by the petitioner under protest and without prejudice, the Respondent Authorities shall duly consider the same. It is observed that non-disbursing the amount already determined, upon further adjudication of the instant proceedings, may be construed as reluctance on the part of the Respondent Authorities to disburse the said amount.

20. List the matter again 30.04.2026.

JUDGE

Comparing Assistant