The final and conclusive nature of the award made under the Act of 1894 as regards the compensation to be paid, and the procedure for seeking reference for determination by the Court as provided in the Act of 1894.

JUDGMENT :

1. These three writ petitions are taken up together for disposal taking into account the common issues and the similarity of the facts.

2. The facts involved in the writ petitions briefly stated are that in order to construct the Trans Arunachal High Way 52(B) from Kanubari to Bogibil Bridge Project, a land acquisition proceedings being LA Case No.13/2008 was registered and notification No.RLA3256/2010/11 dated 28.09.2011 was issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, (for short “the Act of 1894”). The said notification was duly published in the manner set forth in Section 4(1) of the Act of 1984.

3. Pursuant to the said notification, there are various objections filed and proceedings under Section 5A of the Act of 1894 carried out. Pursuant thereto, on 06.01.2012, the declaration under Section 6 of the Act of 1894 was made holding inter alia that the land mentioned in the Schedule to the said Declaration was required to be acquired for public purpose.

4. The records further reveals that various persons submitted representations before the Govt. of Assam, Revenue Department and after receiving such representations, the Deputy Secretary to the Govt. of Assam, Revenue and Disaster Management Department issued a letter No.RLA.256/2010/489 dated 04.11.2013 to the Deputy Commissioner, Sivasagar forwarding the copy of a representation dated 10.10.2013 for taking necessary action. It is alleged that there was no action being taken on the basis of the said representation. On the other hand, the Deputy Commissioner, Sivasagar prepared the land acquisition estimate and award in respect of LA Case No.13/2008 for acquisition of land for construction of the Trans Arunachal High Way 52(B) from Kanubari to Bogibill Bridge Project of village No.1 Kathiakunda, Mouza Sapekhati under Sonari Revenue Circle and forwarded the same to the appropriate Government for approval. The Petitioners further alleged that they came to learn that the Deputy Secretary to the Govt. of Assam, Revenue and Disaster Management Department had also issued a letter No.RLA.256/2010/535 dated 30.12.2023 to the Deputy Commissioner, Sivasagar informing that the government had approved the rectified land acquisition estimate of sum of an amount of Rs.15,04,57,038.00 in so far as the Land Acquisition Case No.13/2008 is concerned.

5. It is further the case of the petitioners that they could come to learn that the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Sivasagar issued letter No.SLVA.13/2008/153 dated 21.01.2014 to the Executive Engineer, PWD NH Division, Jorhat informing that the programe of handing over of the advance possession of the land as per the schedule mentioned therein proposed to be acquired for construction of the Trans Arunachal High Way NH 52(B) from Kanubari to Bogibill Bridge Project of village No.1 Kathiakunda under LA Case No.13/2008 was refixed on 29.01.2014 and requested to depute his representatives to contact the LA staff and Circle Officer so as to assemble all concerned on the spot without trial. Although the petitioners in their writ petitions have stated that there has been many infractions to the provisions of the Act of 1894 in the said land acquisition proceeding but however the petitioners are not against the acquisition of the land but the grievances of the petitioners are that they are entitled to compensation in terms with the provisions of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (for short ‘‘the Act of 2013’’).

6. It is the specific case of the petitioners that as the Award was approved on 30.12.2013 and that the award was filed in terms with the Act of 1894 pursuant to 01.01.2014, the petitioners are entitled to compensation in terms with the Act of 2013 taking into account the provisions of Section 24(1)(a) of the Act of 2013. However as the respondents have informed the petitioners that they would be entitled to compensation only in terms with the Act of 189