Heard Mr. S. Kataki, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. Y. Doloi, learned Additional Advocate General, Assam, assisted by Mr. T.C. Chutia, learned State Counsel, appearing for the respondent Nos.1 to 3 and Mr. S.C. Keyal, learned Assistant Solicitor General of India and Mr. C.K.S. Barua, learned Central Government Counsel, appearing for the respondent Nos.4 and 5.

2. By filing this application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners pray for setting aside and quashing the land acquisition proceeding in L.A. Case No.22/2013 initiated under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, “1894 Act”) and the award dated 26.03.2015, including the notices issued in connection with Boundary Case No.60/2014-15, as being illegal, without jurisdiction, nullity and void ab initio and for a direction to the respondents to initiate land acquisition proceeding for the land involved in L.A. Case No.22/2013 under the Right to Fair Compensation & Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (for short, “2013 Act”).

3. The case of the petitioners, inter alia, is that they are residents of Village-Korchia NC under Mouza Panbari in the District of Kamrup (M) and that the Deputy Secretary to the Government of Assam, Revenue and Disaster Management (L.R.) Department issued a Notification No.RLA.103/2003/3 dated 04.05.2013 under Section 4 of the 1894 Act in connection with land acquisition proceeding in L.A. Case No.22/2013 indicating that land mentioned and described in the said Notification is likely to be needed for a public purpose, namely, for setting up of Battalion Headquarter of Indo-Tibetan Border Police (ITBP) in Sonapur and that if any objection to the acquisition is filed under Section 5A of the 1894 Act by any person interested on or before 30(thirty) days before the Collector, Kamrup (M), the same will be considered.

4. The pleaded case of the petitioners is that though on 01.01.2014, the 2013 Act came into force, instead of proceeding as per provisions of 2013 Act, authorities issued notice dated 28.04.2014 under Section 5A of the 1894 Act and thereby continued with the aforesaid land acquisition proceeding. After affording a hearing, an order was passed by the Collector on 05.05.2014. Thereafter, a declaration was made under Section 6 of the 1894 Act. On 26.03.2015, a notice under Section 12(2) of the 1894 Act was issued stating that an award was made by the Collector on 26.03.2015 under Section 11 of the 1894 Act indicating therein the amount of compensation payable. It is the case of the petitioners that the award dated 26.03.2015 was not furnished to the petitioners and they came to know regarding the award only from the aforesaid notices under Section 12(2) of the 1894 Act. Subsequently, notices were issued by the Circle Officer, Sonapur Revenue Circle in Boundary Case No.60/2014-15 to the petitioners informing them that the ITBP-33 Battalion, Sonapur had applied for demarcation of the land mentioned and described in the notices and, therefore, the boundary would be shown to the applicant ITBP-33 Battalion on 28.08.2015 at 11:00 AM and that it was also mentioned in the said notices that if they had any objection, they might raise such objection by remaining present at the appointed time and place along with supporting documents, failing which steps would be taken as per Rules.

5. In the affidavit filed by the respondent No.2, it is stated that the Government had approved declaration under Section 6(1) of the 1894 Act, subject to the provision of Section 24(1)(a) of the 2013 Act and communication was already made with the Inspector General, North East Frontier Headquarter, ITBP, who had made the request on 29.10.2012 for acquisition of the land for construction of Battalion Headquarter, ITBP at Sonapur.

6. The respondent Nos.4 and 5, in their affidavit, had stated that they had deposited a sum of Rs.1,74,82,135/-, being the approved land acquisition e