1. Heard Mr. A.K. Dutta, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. Y.S. Mannan, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 5, 7 and 8 and Mr. G. Pegu, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 and 6 and Captain P. Kumar, learned counsel for the respondent No.4 and Mr. C.K. S. Barua, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 2 and 3.

2. The 35 petitioners herein are all aggrieved by the inaction on the part of the respondent authorities in not paying zirat amount of the zirat items standing over their respective plots of land, which were acquired by the respondent authorities for the purpose of construction of Silchar By-pass Road. Prior to the acquisition proceedings being initiated, the concerned officials of the respondent authorities had visited the premises of the petitioners and upon making survey and taking into account the existing houses and other properties, had made an assessment of the zirat to be made.

3. The aforesaid exercise was undertaken during the year 2008. But it is the case of the petitioners that after completion of the aforesaid exercise, the officials under the respondent authorities had not proceeded any further and nor had issued any notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 (in short LA Act, 1894). It is specifically stated that after the said survey and enquiry, there has been no news from the respondent authorities and consequent thereto, the petitioners continued to develop their respective lands and in some cases also indulged in construction of residential houses thereon. After such development and improvements were made to the respective lands, a notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 vide notification No.RLA.311/2010/4 was issued on 14.09.2010. As per the said notification, boundaries of the respective lands that were intended to be acquired were specifically provided. It is stated that the boundaries so provided in the Section 4(1) notification also includes the land of the petitioners. After issuance of Section 4(1) notification, possession of the lands in question were taken over by the respondent authorities after issuing Section 6(1) notification and certain compensation on the value of the land were assessed and were paid to the land owners.

4. It is stated by Mr. A.K. Dutta, learned counsel for the petitioners that the compensation so paid to the land owners also included zirat value of the land, but the same were assessed on the basis of the survey that was conducted in the year 2008.

Accordingly, it is claimed of the petitioners are entitled to payment of the zirat value on the basis of zirat that stood and existed on the day the section 4(1) notification was issued.

5. Mr. Y. S. Mannan, learned standing counsel for the PWD on the other hand states that after the survey which was conducted in the year 2008, the petitioners had undertaken certain construction and developments, although they were instructed by the concerned Deputy Commissioner not to do so and therefore, it is the submission of the learned counsel that the petitioners are not entitled to any zirat assessment on the basis of zirat that existed on the day when Section 4(1) was issued.

6. Mr. Y.S. Mannan, learned standing counsel also makes a further submission that there has been 422% increase in respect of houses constructed, 0.5% increase in respect of trees and 63% increase in respect of wells and tanks. Learned counsel by referring to the aforesaid statistics makes a submission that upon came to know that the land is likely to be acquired, the petitioners had undertaken deliberate development of the same so as to extract a higher amount of compensation for the purpose.

7. Mr. Y. S. Mannan, also makes a submission that out of the 35 petitioners involved in this petition, the petitioners Nos. 1, 2, 10, 12, 22, 27, 29, 30, 31, 33 & 35 had also received the value of their land and therefore, the said claims are legitimate claims for the purpose of zirat comp