SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2024 Supreme(Gau) 726

THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT AT GUWAHATI (The High Court of Assam, Nagaland, Mizoram and Arunachal Pradesh) PRINCIPAL SEAT AT GUWAHATI
JUSTICE DEVASHIS BARUAH, J.
Indu Devi, Jitendra Nath Sarma, Himakshi Sharma and Another – Petitioners
Versus
The State of Assam and Others – Respondents
WP(C) 1925 of 2009
With
Shri Joynath Sarma and Others – Petitioners
Versus
The State of Assam and Others – Respondents
WP(C)/5689/2007
With
Joynath Sarma and Others – Petitioners
Versus
The Govt. of Assam and Others – Respondents
WP(C)/6512/2007
With
Joynath Sarma and 30 Others – Petitioners
Versus
The State of Assam and Others – Respondents
WP(C)/2300/2010
With
On the death of Petitioner No.1 Rabindra Nath Sarma – Petitioners
Versus
The State of Assam and 7 Others – Respondents
WP(C)/2872/2013
Decided On : 06-05-2024

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioners: P.K. Roy, H. Das, S.K. Chakraborty.
For the Respondents: S. Baruah, R. Borpujari, S.R. Baruah, D. Nath, P. Nayak.

Requisition must be temporary; indefinite requisition for over 25 years violates property rights and is a misuse of power, necessitating prompt acquisition actions.

Headnote:(A) Assam Land (Requisition and Acquisition) Act, 1964 - Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - Requisition of land for public purpose - Continuation of requisition for over 25 years held unreasonable and arbitrary, violating Article 300A of the Constitution - No sufficient justification for prolonged requisition found - Subsequent acquisition proceedings upheld, but compensation claims not addressed adequately. (Paras 33, 24, 7, 28, 29, 18)

(B) Land Requisition - Definition and duration - Requisition orders must be temporary; indefinite requisition deemed a fraud on power under the statute. Relevant case law referenced includes Supreme Court judgments clarifying distinctions between requisition and acquisition. (Paras 24, 25, 26)

Facts of the case:
The petitioners claimed ownership and possession of land that had been requisitioned for a public bus terminus. The government continued requisitioning the land for over 25 years despite allegations of arbitrary use of power and illegal dispossession of the petitioners. Various writ petitions were filed challenging the legality of this requisition. (Paras 1, 6, 17)

Findings of Court:
The court found the prolonged requisition to be arbitrary, infringing on owners' rights, and emphasized the need for timely acquisition processes. While the acquisition proceedings were found to comply with statutory requirements, the court noted improper withholding of compensation. (Paras 33, 29)

Issues: The central issues included whether indefinite requisition was permissible and if the acquisition proceedings violated earlier court orders. (Paras 17, 18)

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that requisition must be temporary in nature and not continue indefinitely, aligning with constitutional provisions against unlawful deprivation of property. The distinction between requisition and permanent acquisition is emphasized, requiring clear compliance with relevant statutes. (Paras 24, 25, 26)

Result: Writ petitions disposed of with directions regarding compensation claims and the inefficacy of past interim orders. Petitioners may file applications for inadequacy of compensation within six weeks. (Paras 33, 34)

Table of Content
1. background of ownership and requisition. (Para 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7)
2. disputed ownership claims among petitioners. (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12)
3. principle that requisition should be temporary. (Para 14 , 15 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27)
4. arguments regarding legality of requisition. (Para 16 , 17 , 30)
5. court's order and conclusions on compensation. (Para 28 , 29 , 32 , 33)
6. final judgment addressing the legality of requisition and compensation. (Para 31)

JUDGMENT :

DEVASHIS BARUAH, J.

1. All the 5 (five) writ petitions are taken up together for disposal vide this common judgment and order taking into account the similarity of the facts involved and the dispute being commonly placed.

2. One Priyanath Sarma (since deceased) had purchased a plot of land measuring 32 Bighas 4 Kathas 14 Lechas covered by Dag Nos. 273, 304, 305, 306, 594, 779 and 780 of N.K. Patta No. 9 of Village Gorpandu, Kumarpara under Mouza Ramcharani vide a registered Deed of Sale bearing Deed No. 813/39 dated 21.04.1939. Pursuant to the settlement operations being carried out, the said land fell into N.K. Patta No. 14. During the lifetime of Late Priyanath Sarma, he sold land to various persons and the remaining land which was left was 10 Bighas 1 Kathas 10 Lechas in Dag No. 146 covered by N.K. Patta No. 14 under Mouza Jalukbari. Late Priyanath Sarma had 5 (five) sons namely Late Muktinath Sarma, Late Debendra Nath Sarma, Late Pitambar Sarma, Late Joynath Sarma and Late Gopinath Sarma. Late Gopinath Sarma expired unmarried. Upon the death of the legal heirs of Late Priyanath Sarma, their legal heirs succeeded to the land measuring 10 Bighas 1 Kathas 10 Lechas by way of inheritance and claimed to be in possession of the same by paying the land revenue. The above details are mentioned herein on the basis of the statements made in WP (C) No. 5689/2007 and the same shall not be construed as findings of facts by this Court.

3. Be that as it may, prior to the death of the legal heirs of Late Priyanath Sarma, the Collector of Kamrup District (as it then was) vide a Memo No. LA.3/86 dated 22.10.1986 requisitioned 59 Bighas 0 Kathas 10 Lechas of land for the purpose of construction of the Public Bus Terminus at Gorpandu (Adabari) on the basis of the proposal of the Guwahati Municipal Corporation. In that process, 9 Bighas 3 Kathas 0 Lechas of land covered by Dag No. 146 of N.K. Patta No. 14 was requisitioned. The Guwahati Municipal Corporation thereupon constructed the bus terminus way back in the year 1988 and it was mentioned in the aforementioned Memo dated 25.10.1986 that the land was handed over to the Respondent No. 4 i.e. the Commissioner, Guwahati Municipal Corporation for carrying out the construction of the bus terminus.

4. On 29.03.2004, a purported letter was written by the Commissioner, Guwahati Municipal Corporation to the Deputy Commissioner, (Metro), Guwahati on the basis of an application being filed by one Smti Charu Devi, wife of Late Pitambar Sarma stating inter alia that the said application was duly reviewed. It was informed to the Deputy Commissioner (Metro), Guwahati vide the said communication that the land measuring 9 Bighas 3 Kathas 0 Lechas in Dag No. 146 of N.K. Patta No. 14 can be freed from requisition from the end of the Deputy Commissioner, (Metro), Guwahati.

5. The record further reveals that on the basis of the said communication purportedly issued by the Commissioner, Guwahati Municipal Corporation, an application was filed by the Petitioner Nos. 1 to 5 in WP (C) No. 5689/2007 along with Smti Charu Devi for release of a plot of land measuring 7 Bighas 0 Katha 14 Lechas covered by Dag No. 146 of N.K. Patta No. 14 from requisition in connection with L.A. Case No. 3/86. Pursuant thereto, the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Kamrup (Metro) Guwahati issued an order dated 30.11.2005 thereby de-requisitioning the land measuring 7 Bighas 0 Kathas 14 Lechas under Dag No. 146 of N.K. Patta No. 14 of village Gorpandu, Kumarpara under Ja

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top