IMPORTANT POINT
Compensation for land acquisition must be determined under the New Act if awards are passed after its enactment, regardless of prior proceedings under the Old Act.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Mr. B C Das, learned senior counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. R Barpujari, learned standing counsel for the Revenue Department and Mr. RK Talukdar, learned standing counsel for the NHIDCL.

2. The petitioner No.1 herein is a forum formed by the persons residing in different villages, namely, Rajkhowapathar, Alubari No.2, Alubari No.3 and No.2 Bapapung Chipe, Namdang Panbari, Golai, Aagbandha Bongali Gaon, Ledo, Masegaon etc under the Margherita sub division in the Tinsukia district of Assam, whose lands are acquired under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as Old Act) and accordingly land acquisition proceeding under acquisition in LA Case No.32/2009 in LA Case No.33/2009; LA Case No.35/2009; LA Case No.36/2009; LA Case No.37/2009 and LA Case No.44/2009 was initiated.

3. It is stated that the present writ petition is filed to safeguard and protect the interest of the said villagers collectively in getting fair compensation from the authorities for their respective plots of land under acquisition proceeding in connection with construction of National Highway 38 Bypass from Digboi. According to the petitioner, the members of the petitioners’ organization, are owners/possessors of individual/ejmali patta land, wherein they cultivate and produce varieties of agricultural produce.

4. It is the case of the petitioner that given the enactment of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as the New Act), which became operational on 01.01.2014, the petitioners are entitled for land acquisition compensation in terms of the New Act. However, as their prayer was rejected and, the present writ petition is filed.

5. Mr. Borpujari, learned Standing Counsel for Revenue Department has raised a preliminary objection as to the maintainability of the present writ petition at the behest of an unregistered association. According to Mr. Borpujari, learned counsel, the petitioner association cannot be treated as a legal person nor can such association be termed as an aggrieved person. That being the position, the writ petition is not maintainable at the behest of the present petitioner, which is admittedly an unregistered association of people, inasmuch as, such association cannot be branded either as legal or a juristic person for want of registration under the Societies Registration Act, 1860. Therefore, such petitioners are having no locus standi to file the present writ petition.

6. Relying on the decision of the Division Bench in the case of Meghalaya Wine Dealers Association and Others Vs. State of Meghalaya & Others reported in 2010 5 GLR 332, in Teacher’s Educator’s Association Vs. State of Assam and others reported in 2022 2 GLT 932, Mr. Borpujari, learned counsel has argued that as the petitioners had failed to show any indefeasible right in its favour and therefore, even if it is assumed that an unregistered association can maintain a writ petition on behalf of these persons, however, there is no indefeasible right explained in this present writ petition. It is further contended by Mr. Borpujari that the prayer in this writ petition is to give compensation under the National Highways Act 1956 and therefore, this court may not proceed and accept the argument of the petitioners to give them relief under the Act, 2013.

7. Countering such argument Mr. B.C. Das learned senior counsel submits that the law has been laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in this regard in Akhil Bharatiya Soshit Karmachari Sangh (Railway) Vs. Union of India reported in 1981 1 SCC 246, inasmuch as the Hon’ble Apex court depreciated dismissal of writ petition on such technical point, more particularly, when people’s rights are involved.

8. This court is of the view that this writ petition should not be dismissed on the ground of locus, more particularly, for the reason that the aggrieved individual land owners approached this court earl