IMPORTANT POINT
The Court affirmed that land acquisition under the National Highways Act, 1956 must follow due process, and compensation is mandated for acquired land.

JUDGMENT :

DEVASHIS BARUAH, J.

1. Heard Mr. J. Das, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners. Ms. R. Bora, the learned counsel appears on behalf of the respondent Nos. 1, 2, 3 & 4; Mr. A. Bhattacharjee, the learned counsel appears on behalf of the respondent Nos. 5, 6, 7 & 8; Mr. S. Sarma, the learned counsel appears on behalf of the respondent Nos. 9, 10 & 11; Mr. K. Bhuyan, the learned counsel appears on behalf of the respondent No 12.

2. The petitioners herein who claim to be the owners of a plot of land measuring 9 Bighas, 0 Katha, 17 Lechas covered by Dag No. 61 included in K.P. Patta No. 5(Old)/158(New) situated at village-Dhantola, Rangamati, under Mouza- Chayani within the Revenue Circle Palashbari in the District of Kamrup (R) has filed the instant writ petition challenging the actions of the respondent authorities in taking over the land of the petitioners without following the due process.

3. It is the specific case of the petitioners that the respondent No. 4 is constructing a four lane National Highway in the stretch of land from Ch. 173. 434 K.M. to Ch. 200.750 K.M. for package-10 of Bilasipara-Guwahati road in the District of Kamrup in the State of Assam. While doing so, the respondent authorities, more particularly the, respondent No. 4, in collusion with the respondent Nos. 10 & 12 has taken over the land of the petitioners in violation to the provisions to the National Highways Act, 1956. It is under such circumstances, the petitioners herein have sought for direction upon the respondents to pay compensation as provided under provision of the National Highways Act, 1956 read with the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency In Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 and further to hold the construction work in the interim till the respondent authorities do not issue proper notice under the applicable provisions of the National Highways Act, 1956.

4. This Court vide an order dated 03.04.2024 issued notice and in the meantime, directed till the next date of listing and/or until the issuance of notification under Section 3(D) of the National Highways Act, 1956, the respondent Nos. 1 to 4 were restrained from carrying out any activities on the land of the petitioners, reference to which this Court has made in the previous segments of the instant order.

5. Ms. R. Bora, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent Nos. 1 to 4 submitted that in the meantime, the notifications under Section 3(C) of the National Highways Act, 1956 as well as 3(D) of the said Act of 1956 have been duly issued whereby the land measuring 0.6513 Hectares of the petitioner’s land had been acquired under the provisions of the National Highways Act, 1956. In that regard, the learned counsel has drawn the attention of this Court to the said notifications which are a part of the Interlocutory Application filed seeking vacation, modification and/or alteration of the order dated 03.04.2024.

6. This Court has duly taken note of that upon issuance of the notification under Section 3(D) of the Act of 1956, the land measuring 0.6513 Hectares belonging to the petitioners covered by Dag No. 61 included in Patta No. 158 has been acquired under the provision of the National Highways Act, 1956. It is the mandate of law that upon issuance of the said notification, the land vested upon the Central Government. Under such circumstances, this Court finds no reason to keep the instant writ petition pending.

7. Mr. J. Das, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submits that the land which has been acquired is only 0.6513 Hectares whereas the petitioners land is much more. This Court makes it clear that the land which has been acquired and it being only 0.6513 Hectares, the respondent Nos. 1 to 4 including the respondent No. 10 & 12 shall not have any right to disturb the possession in respect to other lands beyond 0.6513 Hectares. The petitioners herein would further be entitled to compensation i