JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Shri N.N. Upadhyaya, learned counsel for the petitioners.

2. Also heard Shri P.S. Deka, learned Standing Counsel, Revenue Department, Assam for the respondent nos. 1, 2 & 3 whereas Shri P.P. Dutta, learned counsel has appeared for the respondent nos. 5, 6 & 7.

3. The name of respondent no. 4 was struck off earlier as per an order dated 03.09.2018 passed by this Court.

4. The petitioners in the instant case has put to challenge an order dated 14.05.2018 passed by the Addl. District Judge, Dibrugarh in Misc L.A. Case No. 02/2016. The said Misc Case was registered based upon a report submitted by the Addl. Deputy Commissioner (R) who is the competent authority for Land Acquisition under the National Highways Act, 1956 in the district of Dibrugarh.

5. Before coming to the issue which falls for a determination, the brief facts of the case are required to be stated.

6. A plot of land measuring approximately 4 katha 18 lechas covered by Dag No. 146 of Annual Patta No. 13 in village Gojpuria Bongali under Khowang Mouja in the District of Dibrugarh was acquired under the National Highways Act for the construction of a four lane National Highway No. 37 in Demow-Dibrugarh sections. The respondent nos. 5, 2, 7 including Shri Padmadhar Chetry (erstwhile respondent no. 4) were the recorded pattadars of the said land. While the process of grant of compensation was on, the present petitioners appeared before the competent authority by filing two petitions whereby they also claim compensation for acquisition.

7. Upon such petitions, reports were called for from the concerned Circle Officer, Moran, who accordingly submitted two reports both dated 08.08.2016.

8. It appears that 1 katha, 19 lechas of land was possessed by the petitioner no. 1 and 2 katha 19 lecha was possessed by the petitioner no. 2.

9. The report further revealed that the recorded Pattadars were not in possession of the aforesaid land.

10. Before the competent authority both the petitioners tried to justify their possession by producing certain land deeds of purchase whereafter the competent authority forwarded the matter for fair judgment before the learned Addl. District Judge, Dibrugarh as per provision of the Act. The learned Court below came to a finding that the sale deeds produced by the petitioners pertained to Miyadi Patta land, more specifically being Miyadi Patta No. 39 having Dag No. 146 and Dag No. 211. There was no document to substantiate purchase of any plot from the Annual Patta land.

11. The reports were also taken consideration of which reveals that the petitioners were not the recorded Pattadars of the land even though they were possessing the same.

12. In that view of the matter, the learned Court was of review that the petitioners can only claim zirat compensation for their occupation over the land whereas the recorded Pattadars and their legal heirs would be entitled to the compensation for the land in question.

13. Shri Upadhyay, the learned counsel for the petitioners has drawn the attention of this Court to the 3 nos. of sale deeds and has submitted that by virtue of this deeds the land covered by the Annual Patta were also transferred to the petitioners.

14. The learned counsel however submits that taking advantage of certain error appearing in the sale deed, the petitioners are being deprived of their legitimate entitlement of compensation for the land.

15. A specific reference has been made to the registered deed no. 2764 which mentions about Patta No. 39 with Dag No. 146 which according to him is an Annual Patta.

16. The learned counsel submits that Dag No. 146 could not be a part of Miyadi Patta No. 39 as it is a part of an Annual Patta and this fact has been ignored/overlooked by the learned Court below.

17. In support of his submission, reliance has been placed on a Judgment of this Court passed in the case of Usman Ali and Ors. vs. Pratap Ch. Bora reported in 2007 (2) GLT 503 wherein it has been laid down that when an Annual Patta holder pur