The main legal point established is the requirement for proper compensation in land acquisition cases and the court's authority to direct the competent authority to reassess compensation in accordance with relevant provisions of law.

SUMAN SHYAM, J.

1. Heard Mr. S. P. Deka, learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioners. I have also heard Mr. D. Saikia, learned Senior Additional Advocate General, Assam, appearing for the respondent Nos.2, 3, 4 and 6 as well as Mr. C. Baruah, learned Standing Counsel, National Highway Authority of India (NHAI), representing the respondent No.5. None appears for respondent No.1.

2. The case of the writ petitioners, in a nutshell, is that their ancestral land measuring 4 bigha 2.5 lechas in total covered by different dag numbers situated at Uttar Dimoria under Sonapur Revenue Circle in the district of Kamrup(M) had been acquired for widening of the existing National Highway No.37 on the strength of the Notification published in the Official Gazette on 19.04.2005. According to the petitioners, there were valuable trees besides horticultural crops, RCC building, safety tank, culvert and a fishery standing upon the acquired land for which no proper compensation had been paid to them. That apart, it is also the claim of the petitioners that the market value of the land was at least Rs. 12 Lacs per bigha on the date on which the possession of the land was taken over, but the writ petitioners were paid compensation at the rate of Rs. 4 Lacs per bigha, that too, only in respect of land measuring 2 Katha 2.5 Lechas.

3. Mr. Deka submits that although an amount of Rs. 16,76,867/- was paid to the petitioners as zirat compensation and a further amount of Rs. 4,67,586/- as compensation for the building and constructions standing thereon, yet, the total amount is far less than what was due and payable to the petitioners under the law. Being dissatisfied by the determination of compensation made by the competent authority i.e. SDO(S), the matter was referred to the arbitrator for determination of the correct compensation. Mr. Deka submits that the learned arbitrator had passed order dated 04.10.2014 referring the mater back to the competent authority for reassessing the amount of compensation required to be paid to the petitioner on account of zirat and for payment of solatium and also compensation for the value of the land as on the date of taking over possession of the same. The primary grievance of the writ petitioners in this case is that despite receipt of the copy of the order dated 04.10.2014, the competent authority in this case had not taken any action for redressal of the grievance of the petitioners.

4. Mr. Deka, the learned counsel for the petitioners has placed heavy reliance on the written argument submitted by him in support of the petitioners to contend that the breakup of the amount due and payable to the petitioners have been lucidly given in the written argument which would go to show that his clients have been deprived of their genuine dues for more than 12 years now due to the inaction on the part of the respondents. Under the circumstances, Mr. Deka has prayed for issuing a writ of mandamus to the respondents to assess the proper compensation and solatium on account of the acquired land, building and zirat along with interest payable in the matter.

5. Mr. D. Saikia, learned Senior Additional Advocate General, Assam, has not opposed the prayer of the petitioners in principle but by referring to the order dated 04.10.2014 he submits that the reassessment of compensation would now have to be made by the competent authority, which in the present case would be the Deputy Commissioner, Kamrup (Metro).

6. Mr. C. Baruah, learned Standing Counsel, NHAI, also submits that he would have no objection if the writ petition is disposed of with a direction upon the competent authority to act in terms of the order dated 04.10.2014, but, referring to the affidavit filed on behalf of his clients Mr. Baruah submits that since the land in question had been acquired before the coming into force of the Right to Fair Compensation