The court emphasized the importance of a legal basis for claims, the need for evidence to support allegations, and the rejection of prayers based on disputed facts.

JUDGMENT :

Heard Shri M Hoque, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Shri D Nath, learned Senior Government Advocate, Assam for the respondent nos. 1, 2, 3 and 4. Shir C Baruah, learned Standing Counsel, NHAI is present for the respondent no.5 which was subsequently impleaded vide an order dated 27.04.2015.

2. The petitioners, who are twenty one in numbers, have raised a claim for compensation pertaining to acquisition of land for construction of the National Highway No. 31 in the district of Barpeta.

3. It is the case of the petitioners that the acquisition proceeding was initiated vide a Gazette Notification dated 16.02.2010 and in the said acquisition proceeding pertaining to a stretch of land from Km. 982.00 to 1041.00 (Nalbari-Bijni Section) in the district of Barpeta, the lands of the petitioners were also mentioned. However, in spite of that the compensation has not been paid.

4. Shri Hoque, learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that though initially, the lands of the petitioners were not directly involved with the acquisition proceeding, subsequently, there was a need for which their lands were also affected. The learned counsel has referred to a document prepared by the Lat Mandal dated 03.12.2014 containing the names of the petitioners and according to him, the lands mentioned in the said document were affected. Shri Hoque, learned counsel has also referred to a statement of direct purchase of lands prepared by the Addl. Deputy Commissioner-cum-CALA, NHAI, Barpeta which contains 58 numbers of entities. It is the specific contention of the petitioners that while the entity against the Sl. No. 1, namely, President/Secretary, Dhupguri Satra, Galia has been paid the compensation, the petitioners have been left out. The learned counsel has raised the issue of discrimination in making the disbursement.

5. Percontra, Shri Nath, learned Senior Government Advocate has submitted that the respondent no. 5, namely, the NHAI has filed two numbers of affidavits. By referring to the affidavit-opposition filed on 03.03.2016, it is submitted that the projection made by the petitioners is incorrect. Shri Nath, learned State Counsel has made specific reference to the rejoinder-affidavit of the respondent no. 5 filed on 28.03.2017 and by referring to the averments made in paragraph 5 thereof, it is submitted that while it is a fact that there was a proposal for direct purchase from 58 numbers of entities, such purchase was made only from the entity no. 1 and accordingly, the price was paid.

6. It is submitted that the lands of the petitioners were not affected and therefore, the question of payment of compensation will not arise. By referring to the Annexure-3 of the said affidavit-in-opposition which is a letter dated 04.06.2014, the learned State Counsel has submitted that the plots of land were directly purchased only from 5 persons who are paid the price and the chart giving the details of such payments is enclosed to the said communication dated 04.06.2014.

7. Shri Nath, learned Senior Counsel, accordingly submits that the petition is misconceived and otherwise also involves disputed questions of fact and therefore, cannot be a matter of adjudication by a writ court.

8. Shri Baruah, learned Standing Counsel, NHAI while endorsing the submission of the learned State Counsel has submitted that the NHAI has discharged its obligation of releasing compensation to only the actually affected persons and in this case, the petitioners are not affected by the said acquisition proceeding. The learned Standing Counsel also clarifies that the rejoinder of the respondent no. 5 filed on 28.03.2017 explained the entire position.

9. In his rejoinder, Shri Hoque, learned counsel has submitted that the position can be verified by the Circle Officer upon which appropriate directions may be passed.

10. The rival contentions have been considered and the materials placed before this Court have been carefully examined.

11. The basis o