JUDGMENT :

Heard Shri S. Mitra, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Shri CKS Baruah, learned CGC for the respondent no. 1; Shri RK Talukdar, learned Standing Counsel, NHIDCL for the respondent nos. 2 and 7; Shri J. Handique, learned State Counsel for the respondent no. 3 and Shri J. Chutia, learned Standing Counsel, KAAC for the respondent nos. 4 to 6.

2. Considering the nature of the dispute and as agreed to by the learned counsel for the parties, the instant writ petition is taken up for disposal at the admission stage.

3. The issue is on a very narrow compass.

4. The facts projected is that the petitioner is the absolute owner of a plot of land measuring 3 bigha in the district of Karbi Anglong, Assam. On 14.12.2021, the Government of India had published a Gazette Notification under Section 3A(1) of the National Highways Act, 1956 for acquiring land for building, maintenance, management and operation of NH-29 in the district of Karbi Anglong. It is the case of the petitioner that though the plot of land purchased by him is not mentioned in the schedule, the official of the respondents had come to his plot and had also done a survey. The petitioner claims to have filed an objection under Section 3C of the Act on which an order of re-survey and correction of land records in the schedule was made. After the corrections, it was detected that out of total land area of 0.4016 hectare, 0.1459 hectare was the petitioner’s land. The Notification under Section 3D of the Act was published in the Gazette on 30.03.2022 for the aforesaid Highway in which the petitioner’s plot was again found missing from the schedule. The contention of the petitioner is that if his plot of land is a part of the acquisition proceeding, it should be properly reflected and due compensation should be paid to him.

5. Shri Mitra, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has not been treated fairly and the matter of acquiring his land has not been done in a transparent manner. He submits that the petitioner seriously apprehends that he would be deprived of the compensation amount in spite of the fact that his land has been acquired in the aforesaid process. He accordingly prays for necessary intervention by this Court.

6. This Court vide an order dated 05.07.2022 while issuing notice had observed that if the acquisition process is inclusive of the land of the petitioner, the same would be subject to the outcome of the writ petition. However, the Notification under Section 3D of the Act dated 30.03.2022 was refused to be stayed.

7. After service of notice, the contesting respondents have appeared.

8. Shri Chutia, learned Standing Counsel, KAAC submits that the facts have not been projected in a correct manner. He submits that though it is a fact that land has been acquired, the petitioner’s right came into being after the initial notice of acquisition was published. The learned Standing Counsel emphatically submits that after the publication in the Gazette wherein land under Dag No. 400 was sought to be acquired the petitioner had purchased a part of the Dag from the original owner which however was recreated as a new Dag and numbered as 363. As a consequence thereof, all further communications happen to be in the name where reference to the old Dag i.e. 400 which was recorded by the NHIDCL authorities and was included in the 3A Notification. The learned Standing Counsel however fairly submits that since the plot of land which has been newly marked as Dag No. 363 is also a part of the acquisition proceedings and was originally a part of Dag No. 400, the remedy of the petitioner would lie in Section 3H of the Act. The learned Standing Counsel specifically drawn the attention of this Court to the provision of Section 3H(3) and 3H(4) and submits that both the apprehension of the petitioner and his rightful dues can be achieved if recourse to the aforesaid provision of law is taken.

9. Shri RK Talukdar, learned Standing Counsel, NHIDC s