JUDGMENT :

SOUMITRA SAIKIA, J.

1. Heard Ms. B. Devi, learned counsel for the appellant. Also heard Mr. D. Mazumder, learned Addl. Advocate General, Assam for the State and Ms. N. Bordoloi, learned Standing Counsel, Revenue Department for the respondents.

2. This writ appeal is preferred by the appellant being aggrieved by the order dated 25.08.2017 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P. (C) No. 1866/2014 whereby the learned Single Judge held that in view of the denial by the respondent No. 4, namely Deputy Commissioner, Cachar, the claim of the petitioner that the possession of the land in question belonging to the petitioner was handed over to the respondent authorities. The learned Single Judge also held that as disputed questions of facts are involved, declined to invoke the writ jurisdiction and accordingly, disposed of the writ petition with a direction to the petitioner to raise his entitlement before the appropriate forum, if any. Aggrieved by the said findings of the learned Single Judge, this writ appeal is presented by the appellant on the following grounds:

“6.1 For that the Hon’ble Single Judge failed to take into consideration the legal point involved in the writ petition which is being covered by the provision of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and as such the impugned judgment and order passed by the Hon’ble Single Judge is liable to be set aside and quashed.

6.2. For that the Hon’ble Single Judge while passing the impugned Judgment and Order had failed to appreciate the fact that the remedy available to the petitioner and there is violation of any mandatory provision of any Statue and in absence of any documents which would go to show that the possession of the land has not been handed over the finding of the Hon’ble Single Judge is perverse and as such the impugned Judgment and Order passed by the Hon’ble Single Judge is liable to be set aside and quashed.

6.3. For that the Hon’ble Single Judge while passing the impugned Judgment and order misconstrued the settled principle of law as enumerated in Section 48(2) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 which make it obligatory for the Collector/Deputy Commissioner to determine the amount of compensation due for the damages suffered by the owner in consequence of any notice or of any proceeding there under but the Hon’ble Single Judge failed to deal with these vital aspect of the matter and thereby arrived at an erroneous finding and as such the impugned Judgment and Order of the Hon’ble Single Judge is liable to be set aside and quashed.

6.4. For that the Hon’ble Single Judge while passing the impugned Judgment and Order arrived at an erroneous finding by drawing logical inference that since the respondents have denied taking possession of the land as such the contention of the writ petitioner is a disputed question of fact and therefore, devoid of any merit for adjudication before this Hon’ble Court which is perverse and as such the impugned Judgment and order is liable to be set aside and quashed.

6.5. For that the respondent No. 4 being the Collector/Deputy Commissioner was bound to determine the amount the compensation immediately after issuance of notification for derequisition of the land and even after submission of representations the respondents authority did not responded which is reflective of the high handed attitude of the respondent authorities which can be enforced by way of a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India but the Hon’ble Single Judge committed error in passing the impugned Judgment and Order without ascertaining this vital aspect of the matter and thereby arrived at an erroneous finding as such the impugned Judgment and Order is liable to be set aside and quashed.

6.6 For that the Hon’ble Single Judge failed to appreciate the fact that the respondent authorities were duty bound to pay compensation from the date on which the land was acquired till the date of derequisition and as such in absence of any material to show to the co