JUDGMENT :

(Suman Shyam, J.)

Heard Mr. S. Ali, learned counsel assisted by Mr. R. Baruah, learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioner. Also heard Ms. G. Hazarika, learned Standing Counsel, Revenue and Disaster Management Department, Assam appearing for the respondent No.1, Mr. H. Sarma, learned Additional Senior Government Advocate, Assam appearing for the respondent Nos.2 and 3 and Mr. C. K. S. Baruah, learned Central Government Counsel appearing for the respondent Nos.4 and 5.

2. This writ petition has been filed seeking a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to disburse the amount of compensation payable to the writ petitioner for acquiring her land measuring 21 bighas 15 lechas. The facts of the case, in a nutshell, are that the respondent Nos.4 and 5 were in requirement of land in the Kamrup (Metro) District for setting up Indo Tibetan Border Police (ITBP) Battalion Headquarters. Accordingly, land measuring approximately 184 bighas was identified at Sonapur area under Panbari Mouza in the District of Kamrup. Notification under section 4 of the LAND ACQUISITION ACT , 1894 was issued on 04.05.2013 and on 18.04.2014, notices under section 5A of the LAND ACQUISITION ACT was issued/served upon individual pattadars/land owners inviting objections. After the objections were dealt with, a declaration under section 6 of the LAND ACQUISITION ACT , 1894 was issued notifying the intention of the Government to acquire the land in question for construction of ITBP Headquarters. After following the due process laid down in the LAND ACQUISITION ACT , 1894, possession of the land was taken over and the ITBP Headquarters had been constructed over the said plot of land.

3. The writ petitioner herein claims to be the owner of 21 Bighas 15 Lechas of land which forms part of the land acquired by the District Administration for construction of the ITBPP headquarters. According to the case projected by the petitioner, notice under section 54 of the LAND ACQUISITION ACT , 1894 was served upon her and she had duly responded to the same. Notwithstanding the same, no compensation for acquiring her land has been paid till today. Aggrieved thereby, the instant writ petition has been filed.

4. It appears from the record that the Collector had originally assessed the value of the land at the rate of Rs.50,000/- per bigha. However, some of the land owners, being aggrieved with the aforesaid determination, had raised objection as a result of which, the matter was referred to the Court of Additional District Judge No.1, Kamrup(M), Guwahati and L.A. Ref. Case No.25/2016 was registered with as many as 27 land owners as the petitioners therein. However, the present writ petitioner was not a party to the said proceeding. After hearing the parties the learned Additional District Judge had passed judgment dated 09.08.2019 answering the Reference, by holding that the sum of Rs.50,000/- per bigha was inadequate and that the market value of the land ought to be Rs.8,16,000/- per bigha. It appears that, in the meantime, the ITBP authorities had deposited some amount with the Collector by treating the value of the land as Rs.50,000/- per bigha, out of which, some amounts have been paid to the land owners. However, the writ petitioner herein did not receive a single farthing. Eventually, some of the land owners had approached this Court by filing LA. Appeal No.18/2019 seeking further enhancement of the land value by questioning the validity of the judgment and order dated 09.08.2019. The said appeal is pending disposal before this Court.

5. Mr. S. Ali, learned counsel for the writ petitioner submits that there is no dispute about the fact that the writ petitioner is the recorded pattad