[Cites 9, Cited by 0]
Gauhati High Court
Nijam Uddin Laskar vs The Union Of India And Ors on 9 March, 2026
Author: Devashis Baruah
Bench: Devashis Baruah
Page No.# 1/6
GAHC010157702025
undefined
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : WP(C)/4053/2025
NIJAM UDDIN LASKAR
S/O LT ALI RAJA LASKAR VILL RONGPUR PART I PO DAYAPUR PS
SILCHAR DIST CACHAR ASSAM
VERSUS
THE UNION OF INDIA AND ORS
REP BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVT OF INDIA MINISTRY OF ROAD
TRANSPORT AND HIGHWAYS TRANSPORT BHAWAN 1 PARLIAMENT
STREET NEW DELHI 1
2:THE STATE OF ASSAM
REP BY THE COMMISSIONER ADN SECRETARY TO THE GOVT OF ASSAM
REVENUE AND DISASTER MANAGEMENT DEPTT DISPUR GHY 6
3:THE DISTRICT COMMISSIONER AND COMPETENT AUTHORITY OF LAND
ACQUISITION
CACHAR
SILCHAR
4:THE CO DISTRICT COMMISSIONER AND COMPETENT AUTHORITY OF
LAND ACQUISITION CACHAR
SILCHAR
5:THE NATIONAL HIGHWAYS AND INFRSTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT
CORPORATION LTD (NHIDCL)
REP BY THE DEPUTY GENERAL MANGER NHIDCL CACHAR SILCHAR
6:THE ASSISTANT SETTLEMENT OFFICER
SILCHAR SADAR CIRCLE SILCHAR DIST CACHAR ASSA
Page No.# 2/6
For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. F. U. Barbhuiya, Advocate
For the Respondent(s) : Ms. R. Borah, Advocate
Mr. H. Sarma, Advocate
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVASHIS BARUAH
Date of Hearing : 09.03.2026
Date of Judgment : 09.03.2026
JUDGMENT AND ORDER (ORAL)
Heard Mr. F. U. Barbhuiya, the learned counsel appearing on
behalf of the petitioner. Ms. R. Borah, the learned counsel
appears on behalf of the respondent Nos.1 & 5. None appears on
behalf of the Revenue Department of the Government of Assam.
Mr. H. Sarma, the learned counsel appears on behalf of the
respondent Nos.3, 4 & 6.
2. The petitioner herein is aggrieved by the action on the part
of the respondent No.4 who is the Competent Authority under
the provisions of the National Highways Act, 1956, (for short,
'the Act of 1956') in not referring the dispute pertaining to the
inadequacy of compensation as determined under Section 3G(1)
of the Act of 1956 to the Arbitrator.
3. The materials on record, more particularly the pleadings in
the writ petition show that the petitioner claims to be an owner
Page No.# 3/6
of a plot of land admeasuring 7 kathas 8 gondas under the 2 nd
RS Patta No.88 of Dag No.234 situated under Sub-Registry Office
Silchar, P.S.-Silchar, Pargana-Barakpar, Mouza-Rongpur Part-I.
Upon the said land, the petitioner had constructed an Assam
Type House with three commercial shops. The respondent No.1
had issued a notification under Section 3A(1) of the Act of 1956
declaring their intention to acquire the land by mentioning the
plot number with area in hectares along with the type of land
and the nature of land of respective villages including the land of
the petitioner at Village Rongpur Part-I for the purpose of
widening/four-laning the operation of NH-37 falling in the stretch
of land from Km. 4.50 to Km.24.560 in the district of Cachar. The
petitioner's land has been mentioned at Serial No.134 of plot
No.234 (Dag No.234) with an area of 0.052 hectare along with
one Abil Hussain Laskar, but the land of the petitioner has been
shown as agricultural land, which is otherwise as per the
petitioner, a commercial land. The petitioner thereupon
submitted a representation before the respondent No.4 through
the Office of the respondent No.3 on 11.03.2024. However, no
positive steps in that regard were taken. Thereupon, a
notification was issued under Section 3D of the Act of 1956
thereby declaring the land specified in the Schedule to the said
Notification to vest absolutely in the Central Government.
Page No.# 4/6
4. The petitioner submitted representations on 13.05.2025 and
26.06.2025 being aggrieved by the inadequacy of compensation
as the land of the petitioner was not taken as a commercial land,
but rather the determination of compensation was made as an
agricultural land. The petitioner vide the said communications
also sought that the matter be referred to the Arbitrator under
Section 3G(5) of the Act of 1956 and the compensation be
determined in terms with Section 3G(7) of the Act of 1956 read
with Sections 26 to 30 of the Right to Fair Compensation and
Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and
Resettlement Act, 2013. The Respondent Authorities, more
particularly the respondent No.4 has not taken any steps in that
regard and it is under such circumstances, that the petitioner has
been constrained to approach this Court.
5. This Court further takes note that when the writ petition
was listed before this Court on 11.08.2025, notice was issued.
The respondents have not produced any instructions in respect
to the grievance of the petitioner. The instruction which has been
placed is that the amount which has been awarded to the
petitioner has already been disbursed to the petitioner.
6. Mr. F. U. Barbhuiya, the learned counsel appearing on behalf
of the petitioner submitted that there is no dispute that the
amount which has been awarded to the petitioner has been
Page No.# 5/6
disbursed to the petitioner. The dispute or the grievance of the
petitioner is that no steps have been taken for making the
reference in terms with Section 3G(5) of the Act of 1956 for
which the representations were being submitted.
7. Taking into account that the petitioner had submitted not
only one but two representations, i.e. the representation dated
13.05.2025 and the representation dated 26.06.2025, it is the
opinion of this Court that the respondent No.4 ought to have
referred the dispute to the Arbitrator so appointed by the Central
Government for determination on the question of inadequacy of
the compensation. The same having not been done, it is
therefore the opinion of this Court that necessary directions are
required to be passed.
8. Accordingly, the instant petition stands disposed of with the
following observations and directions:-
(i) The respondent Nos.3 & 4, and more particularly the
respondent No.4 is directed to act upon the representations
submitted by the petitioner dated 13.05.2025 and
26.06.2025 enclosed as Annexures 6 and 7 to the instant
writ petition and thereupon refer the dispute as regards
inadequacy of the compensation to the Arbitrator.
(ii) The same be done within a period of 30 days from the
Page No.# 6/6
date a certified copy of the instant judgment is served upon
the respondent No.4.
JUDGE
Pradip Kumar Kalita Digitally signed by Pradip Kumar Kalita
Date: 2026.03.10 13:31:34 +05'30'
Comparing Assistant
