Decided on December 18,2018

Sarbeswar Tamuli And 13 Ors Appellant
Union Of India And 4 Ors Respondents


Kalyan Rai Surana, J. - (1.) Heard Mr. P. Mahanta, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. R.K. Talukdar, learned counsel for the respondents No. 2 and 3 and Mr. S.R. Baruah, learned Govt. Advocate appearing for the State respondents No. 4 and 5 as well as Mr. A. Khaund, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Mrs. V.L. Singh, learned standing counsel for the respondent No.6.
(2.) By filing this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the grievance of the petitioners is regarding non-payment of land acquisition compensation to them, which was acquired for the purpose of constructing the 4(four) Lane NH-37 vide notification under S.O. 1429(E) dated 13.04.2016, published in the newspapers on 05.05.2016.
(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the competent authority, namely, the Addl. Deputy Commissioner (Land Acquisition) appointed under Sub-section (1) of Section 3A of the National Highways Act. 1956 had assessed the compensation due to the petitioners and at that stage, while several other beneficiaries had been granted land acquisition compensation, the amount due to the petitioners were withheld without any valid reason. It is further submitted that the Central Govt. has deposited the entire compensation amount for the said land with the competent authority. It is also submitted that upon enquiry about the reasons for non-payment of compensation, the petitioners were informed that based on allegations made in the local newspapers about corruption and over valuation of land and structures in course of acquisition of land for 4-laning of NH-37, the Deputy Commissioner, Sivasagar had ordered for re-assessment of the land and structures which were acquired. The learned counsel for the petitioners submit that upon determination of the land acquisition compensation under Section 3G of the National Highways Act, the only remedy available to a "affected party" is to take recourse to Sub-section (1) of Section 3G of the said Act for referring the matter to arbitration. Hence, it is submitted that the Deputy Commissioner, Sivasagar had no power or authority to order for reassessment of compensation. The learned counsel for the petitioner by referring to the affidavit-inopposition filed by the respondent No.6 has submitted that the NHIDCL has taken a stand that after receiving the estimate from CALA and based on demand placed by CALA, the full estimate amount had already been deposited and therefore, the respondent No.6 i.e. NHIDCL had no role either in the assessment or in the matter of distribution of the land acquisition compensation.;

Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.