Point of Law: Pleadings there have been any specific averments regarding violation of any provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.

JUDGMENT :

SANJAY KUMAR MEDHI, J.

1. Both the writ petitions being connected with the same LA Case No. 7/2011 and are pending since long are taken up for final disposal at the admission stage itself.

2. The first writ petition being WP (C)/6979/2015 has been instituted questioning a land acquisition proceeding.

3. The second writ petition being WP (C)/5956/2016 has been filed by two petitioners having adjacent land at Betkuchi under Beltola Mauza in the district of Kamrup (M). Their lands are contiguous to the land owned by the petitioner in WP (C)/6979/2015, who is also the respondent no. 8 in this writ petition and mother of the petitioner no. 1. At the time of purchase of the said plot of land, the land belonging to the respondent no. 8 was used for ingress or egress. However, after issuance of the notice dated 09.10.2015 on the Assam Tribune from which the petitioner had come to know regarding acquisition of the land of the respondent no. 8, the present writ petition has been filed as their right to ingress or egress would be adversely affected by such acquisition.

4. The facts of the cases may be put in a nutshell as follows.

5. The petitioner in WP (C) No. 6979/2015 claims to be the owner of a plot of land measuring 10-11 bighas (approx.) covered by Dag No. 406, 407, 408 and 413 of KP Patta No. 263 situated at Betkuchi village under Beltola Mauza in the district of Kamrup (M). The petitioner claims that after purchase of the said plot of land, the same was developed by investing huge amount by taking money on loan from Bank with the said property as collateral security. In the year 2013, the aforesaid land was acquired under the provision of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 for the purpose of construction of Petroleum Storage Terminal of the IOC and the acquisition is required for the safety and security of the entire area as the product in question is hazardous. However, it is the case of the petitioner that no effective steps were taken for payment of any compensation and the authorities are contemplating to determine the compensation in terms of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 whereas according to the petitioner, the compensation should be under the Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. As indicated above, the two petitioners in the second petition have land contiguous to the land of the petitioner in the first case and have their ingress and egress to their land through the plot of the subject land and therefore, they claim to be adversely affected by the aforesaid acquisition proceedings.

6. I have heard Shri G.N. Sahewalla, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Shri B. Sarma, learned counsel for the petitioners whereas the State is represented by Shri D. Nath, learned Senior Government Advocate, Assam and the IOCL is represented by Shri P. Bhardwaj, learned Standing Counsel.

7. Shri Sahewalla, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners has submitted that pertaining to the first case, objections were filed before the competent authority on 04.04.2013 and 05.04.2013 not to acquire the land in question. A representation was also filed on 05.10.2015. The learned Senior Counsel submits that on 09.10.2015, the petitioner came to know from a newspaper report directing the petitioner to be present at the property. Under those circumstances, the petitioner had earlier approached this Court by filing WP (C)/6415/2015 with a prayer to dispose of the representation dated 05.10.2015 and also against the notice dated 09.10.2015. In paragraph 4 of the petition, it has however been stated that no notice was issued in the said writ petition as the representation dated 05.10.2015 was disposed of by a letter dated 28.10.2015, accordingly the writ petition was withdrawn. The learned Senior Counsel has submitted that there is violation of Article 300A of the Constitution of India and therefore a direction is required to be issued for applying the provisions of the Right to Fair Compensation Act, 2013. In so far as the second w