Gauhati High Court
H.P. Agro Products Pvt. Ltd vs The State Of Assam And 2 Ors on 1 September, 2020
Author: Achintya Malla Bujor Barua
Bench: Achintya Malla Bujor Barua
Page No.# 1/3
GAHC010112352020
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : WP(C) 3308/2020
1:H.P. AGRO PRODUCTS PVT. LTD.
A COMPANY DULY INCORPORATED UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT, 1956
HAVING ITS REGD. OFFICE AT FLAT NO.304 MANGALAM APARTMENT,
EAST INDIA LANES, S.J. ROAD, ATHGAON, GUWAHATI-01, DIST. KAMRUP
(M), AND IS REPRESENTED BY ITS DULY AUTHORIZED DIRECTOR SHRI
HARISH CHANDAK, R/O. FLAT NO.304, MANGALAM APARTMENT, EAST
INDIA LANES, S.J. ROAD, ATHGAON, GHY.-01, DIST. KAMRUP (M).
VERSUS
1:THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 2 ORS.
REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, LAND AND REVENUE DEPTT., DISPUR, ASSAM.
2:THE DY. COMMISSIONER CUM COMPETENT AUTHORITY
UNDER PROVISIONS OF RIGHT TO FAIR COMPENSATION AND
TRANSPARENCY IN LAND ACQUISITION
REHABILITATION AND RESETTLEMENT ACT
2013
KAMRUP
AMINGAON
ASSAM.
3:GUWAHATI METROPOLITAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
REP. BY ITS CHAIRMAN
BHANGAGARH
GUWAHATI-781005
ASSAM
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR G N SAHEWALLA
Advocate for the Respondent : SC, REVENUE
Page No.# 2/3
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ACHINTYA MALLA BUJOR BARUA
ORDER
Date : 01-09-2020 Heard Mr. D Senapati, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. D Nath, learned Additional Senior Government Advocate for the Deputy Commissioner Kamrup (Rural) as well as Mr. J Handique, learned counsel for the Revenue Department of the Government of Assam.
2. The land of the petitioner situated at village Sila, Mouza Sila Sinduri Ghopa under KM Patta No.229 Dag Nos.967 and 968 had been acquired by the respondent authorities for construction of a road leading to the NIPER campus at Changsari from the NH-13. For the purpose, the communication dated 22.02.2019 was issued by the Deputy Commissioner Kamrup(Rural) informing the petitioner that the plot of land of the petitioner mentioned therein had been acquired under the Assam Land (Requisition and Acquisition) Act 1964 (for short, the Act of 1964). The communication further states that in lieu of such acquisition, compensation has been paid as per the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (for short, the Act of 2013).
3. We have noticed the fundamental defect in the communication to the extent that if the land was acquired under the Act of 1964, the compensation thereof is to be determined as provided in Section 11 of the said Act. We do not understand how the Deputy Commissioner determines the compensation under the Act of 2013.
4. The Deputy Commissioner to explain on the next date fixed as to whether the land of the petitioner was acquired under the Act of 1964 or it was acquired under the Act of 2013. The relevance of such explanation is that if the land was acquired under the Act of 1964, we are required to determine the dispute between the parties as per the provisions of the Act of 1964 and on the other hand, if it was acquired under the Act of 2013, we are required to determine it under the Act of 2013. Prima facie, different stages of an acquisition proceeding cannot be carried further interchangeably under the provisions of two different Acts and therefore, it is for the authorities to take a call as to under which of the two Acts the acquisition proceeding was undertaken.
Page No.# 3/3
5. List on 10.09.2020 for the aforesaid clarification by the Deputy Commissioner, Kamrup (Rural) by filing an affidavit.
JUDGE Comparing Assistant