Gauhati High Court
Bijon Das And 10 Ors vs The State Of Assam And 3 Ors on 29 January, 2025
Page No.# 1/9
GAHC010041282023
2025:GAU-AS:1008
IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(THE HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
WP(C) 1709/2023
Bijon Das and 10 Ors.
S/O Rajendra Das R/O Lalganesh Guwahati 36 Dist. Kamrup (M)
Assam
2: Rabindra Chandra Das
S/O Bonka Bihari Das R/O Lalganesh Guwahati 36 Dist. Kamrup
(M) Assam
3: Sultan Ahmed
D/O Sadar Ali R/O Islampur Near Nehru Stadium Ulubari
Guwahati 7 Dist. Kamrup (M) Assam
4: Tahar Ali
S/O Lt. Nasir Ali R/O Islampur Near Nehru Stadium Ulubari
Guwahati 7 Dist. Kamrup (M) Assam
5: Subrata Das
S/O Rabindra Das R/O Lalganesh Guwahati 36 Dist. Kamrup (M)
Assam
6: Swapan Malakar
S/O Sailendra Malakar R/O Lalganesh Guwahati 36 Dist.
Kamrup (M) Assam
7: Bijit Paul
S/O Babul Paul R/O Lalganesh Guwahati 36 Dist. Kamrup (M)
Page No.# 2/9
Assam
8: Muslim Nadaf
S/O Lt. Abdul Latif Nadaf R/O Solapara Paltanbazaar Guwahati
8 Dist. Kamrup (M) Assam
9: Harun Nadaf
S/O Lt Suleman Nadaf R/O Islampur Near Nehru Stadium
Ulubari Guwahati 7 Dist. Kamrup (M) Assam
10: Bimal Ghosh
S/O Dhami Ghosh R/O Manipur Basti Paltanbazar Guwahati 8
Dist. Kamrup (M) Assam
11: Shyamal Choudhury
S/O Lt Sukendra Choudhury R/O Kalapahar Guwahati 16 Dist.
Kamrup (M) Assam
...............................Petitioners
VERSUS
The State of Assam and 3 Ors.
Rep. By The Secretary Deptt. Of Revenue And Disaster
Management Govt. Of Assam Assam Secretariat Dispur
Guwahati 6
2:The Deputy Commissioner
Kamrup (M)
Hengrabari Guwahati 6
3:The Circle Officer
Guwahati Revenue Circle Ulubari Guwahati 7
Page No.# 3/9
4:The Executive Engineer
Pwrd East Guwahati Territorial Road Division Bamunimaidam
Guwahati 2
....Respondents
Advocates for the Petitioners: Mr. N. Alam, Advocate.
Advocates for the respondents: Mr. A. Bhattacharjee, respondent no.1.
Mr. N. Goswami, respondent nos. 2 and 3.
Ms. M. Das, SC, PWD respondent no. 4.
BEF O R E HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KARDAK ETE Date of hearing : 29.01.2025 Date of Judgment : 29.01.2025 JUDGMENT & ORDER (Oral) Heard Mr. N. Alam, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. A. Bhattacharjee, learned State Counsel for the respondent no.1, Mr. N. Goswami, learned counsel for the respondent nos. 2 and 3 and Ms. M. Das, learned Standing Counsel, PWD for the respondent no.4.
2. This writ petition has been instituted by the petitioners challenging the order dated 01.02.2023 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Kamrup (M), Guwahati, in L.A. Case No. 3/2022 under Assam Land (Requisition and Acquisition) Act, 1964, pursuant to the notice under Section 3(1) of the Act, whereby, the objection received from the pattaders pertaining to requisition of land for construction of foot over bridge from K.C. Sen Road to Railway station in village-Sahar Guwahati Part-IV under Ulubari Mouza has been rejected.
3. The case in brief is that the petitioners claim to be petty businessmen, Page No.# 4/9 who are running a Dala Shop/Putting wood plank since 1991 by paying rent on daily basis to the landlord/landlady for their businesses. While the petitioners were running their businesses, for construction of foot over bridge from K.C. Sen Road to Railway station, the area of the business premise of the petitioners have been requisitioned by the respondent authorities under Assam Land (Requisition and Acquisition) Act, 1964. As per the provisions, a notice was issued as required under the said Act of 1964. Pursuant thereto, the pattaders/land holders namely Nazina Ahmed and 16 others have filed their objections to such requisition.
4. On 17.01.2023, hearing was conducted wherein, the objections of the pattaders/land holders were taken up for consideration. The pattaders/land holders objected to the effect that the alignment for construction of foot over bridge be changed. After consideration of the objections raised by the pattaders/land owners, the Deputy Commissioner, Kamrup(M), Guwahati, vide order dated 01.02.2023, has rejected the objection of the pattadars for change of alignment for construction of foot over bridge.
5. The case projected is that the petitioners being the tenant, who is running petty businesses in the said area, have not been heard as no notice was issued to the petitioners.
6. Mr. N. Alam, learned counsel for the petitioners, by referring to the provisions of Assam Land (Requisition and Acquisition) Act, 1964, particularly, Sub-Section 2 of Section-3, submits that it is not only the owner of the land but if the land proposed to be requisition is in occupation of tenant, a notice has to be served upon the tenant also. He submits that the petitioners being the tenants in the said premises, are entitled to be served with a notice before the land is requisitioned or acquired, under the provisions of the said Act. Since, no Page No.# 5/9 notice has been issued in conformity with the Section 3(2) of the Act, the eviction of the petitioners as well as the impugned order cannot be sustained. Therefore, the petitioners may be directed to be appropriately compensated as they have lost their source of earning for their bread and butter, which has deprived their livelihood.
7. Mr. N. Goswami and Mr. A. Bhattacharjee learned counsels for the respondents, on the other hand, submits that since the land owners/pattaders have been appropriately compensated for an amount of Rs. 78,5784/-, the petitioners apart from not having any reliable documents of tenancy, has no right to claim for any compensation. If at all, the petitioners may avail the appropriate remedy under the law and may sue the pattaders/landholders. The respondents have also submitted that under the Assam Land Act, 1964, particularly, Section 12 provides for a reference to the Court, therefore, if the petitioners considered themselves to be persons aggrieved and since the award has already passed and compensation paid, they may approach the appropriate authority for reference. Therefore, the learned counsel for the respondents submits that the petitioners does not have any locus to challenge the impugned order and as such, present writ petition is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed not only on the merit but on the ground of availability of alternative efficacious remedy under the law.
8. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also considered the materials available on record.
9. The petitioners are the petty businessmen, who are running their businesses at Paltan Bazar by the side of railway station, Guwahati, whereby, the foot over bridge has been constructed from K.C. Sen Road to Railway station in village-Sahar Guwahati Part-IV under Ulubari Mouza and admittedly, Page No.# 6/9 the petitioners are not the pattaders/land holders. The land which has been requisitioned or acquired under the Assam Land (Requisition and Acquisition) Act, 1964, has been done by issuing a notice under Section 3(1) of the said Act, whereby, the pattaders/land owners have been heard and on consideration of the objection filed by the pattaders/land holders, the impugned order has been passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Kamrup (M), Guwahati.
10. Although, the petitioners claim to be tenants, there is nothing on record to show that they are entitled to be heard under Section 3(2) of the Assam Land (Requisition and Acquisition) Act, 1964, after serving notice before the land is requisitioned or acquired.
11. Having considered that essentially, the grievance raised in this writ petition is to the effect that the petitioners have not been served with the notice before the land was requisitioned or acquired by the respondent authorities in violation of Section 3(2) of the said Act, I deem it appropriate to consider the provisions of the Assam Land (Requisition and Acquisition) Act, 1964.
12. Section 3 provides as under:-
3. Power to requisition.- (1) If in the opinion of the State Government or any person authorized in this behalf by the State Government it is necessary so to do, for maintaining supplies and proper facilities for accommodation, transport, communication, irrigation, flood control and anti-erosion measures including embankment and drainage or for providing land individually or in groups to landless, flood affected or displaced persons or to a society registered under the Assam Co-operative Societies Act, 1949 (Assam Act I of 1950), or a company incorporated under Companies Act, 1956 (Act I of 1956), formed for benefit and rehabilitation of landless, flood affected or displaced persons for to provide land for the purpose of construction of border fencing and allied works, including border roads and check posts connected therewith, along Bangladesh border]¹ the State Government or the person so authorised, as the case may be, may by order in writing, requisition any land and may Page No.# 7/9 make such further orders as appear to it or to him to be necessary or expedient in connection with the requisitioning.
(2) An order under sub-section (1) shall be served in the prescribed manner on the owner of the land and where the order relates to land in occupation of a tenant, also on such tenant.
(3) When the order for requisition is made by any authority other than the State Government, any person interested in the land, within 30 days from the date of service of the order, may appeal to the State Government and the decision of the State - Government in such appeal shall be final.
13. On bare perusal of the above provisions, it reflects that apart from a notice to be issued to the land owners, if there is a tenant, a notice has to be served to the tenant. In the present case, it appears that the petitioners are the tenants and no notice has been served, which indicate that there are some aberrations in following the provisions of Section 3(2). However, even if the notices are served to the petitioners, I am of the view that it would make no difference as by now the foot over bridge has already been constructed and the petitioners have been evicted. The respondent after requisition of the said land under the Assam Land Act, 1964, appropriate compensation has been granted to the land owners/pattaders.
14. Having considered the entire facts and circumstances of the present case, I am of the view that the petitioners at best could avail the appropriate remedy under the law as they are basically aggrieved of non-payment of compensation which they may be entitled against the land owners by virtue of the tenancy agreement which may lie under Civil remedy. That apart Section 12 of the Assam Land Act, 1964, provides for a reference to a Court, which provides that the person aggrieved of the award may file an appropriate application before the appropriate authority for reference to a Court. Thus, I am of the view that Page No.# 8/9 the petitioners have not only alternative but efficacious remedy under the law. It is also noticed that the petitioners being deprived of their daily petty businesses for their livelihood and being tenants have filed a representation before the Deputy Commission, Kamrup (M), Guwahati, which has not been considered.
15. Be that as it may, as noted above, since the petitioners are having alternative remedy under the law, this Court is of the view that no interference is called for to the impugned order dated 01.02.2023 and no relief can be granted as prayed for in this present proceedings.
16. In view of the foregoing reasons, this Court is not persuaded for any interference with the impugned order dated 01.02.2023 and no relief can be granted to the petitioners, as the impugned orders relates to the objection filed by the land owners, who have already been appropriately compensated. Consequently, the writ petition stands dismissed being devoid of merit.
17. However, it is made clear that dismissal of the writ petition shall not preclude the petitioners to avail the appropriate remedy available as may be permissible under the law. Although, this Court is not oblivious of the fact that the petitioners are running petty businesses on day-to-day basis for their livelihood, however, in the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is not in a position to grant any relief to the petitioners.
18. The writ petition stands disposed of. No order as to cost(s).
JUDGE Page No.# 9/9 Comparing Assistant