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

2025 Supreme(Gau) 364

THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI (THE HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) (Itanagar Permanent Bench at Yupia)
KALYAN RAI SURANA, MRIDUL KUMAR KALITA, JJ
Tenken Nada S/o Bomten Nada And 31 Ors. - Appellant
Versus
The Union Of India And 6 Ors - Respondent
WA 23 / 2023
Decided On : 07-02-2025

Advocates Appeared:
For the appellants :Mr. D. Mazumdar, Senior Advocate.:Mr. S.K. Deori, Advocate.
For the respondent:Mr. P.K. Tiwari, Senior Advocate.:Mr. K. Saxena, Advocate. Ms. R. Basar, Govt. Advocate

IMPORTANT POINT
The Loss Assessment Report of February 2008 is final, and the Deputy Commissioner lacked jurisdiction to reassess land for compensation claims.

Headnote:

(A) Intra Court Appeal - Writ Petition - Compensation for land submerged under Subansiri Hydro Power Project - The appellants, project affected families, claimed compensation for land submerged, while two individuals from their village received compensation - The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition, stating the Loss Assessment Report lacked technical expertise and the appellants failed to prove their claims. (Paras 4 , 6 , 31 )

(B) Legal Standing - The court affirmed that the Loss Assessment Report of February 2008 is final and exhaustive, and the Deputy Commissioner lacked jurisdiction to reassess land without a competent authority's request. (Paras 28 , 31 )

(C) Doctrine of Election - The court held that appellants who accepted compensation cannot make further claims, as they are bound by their prior acceptance. (Paras 33 )

Facts of the case:

The appellants, project affected families from Dibe village, claimed compensation for land submerged by the Subansiri Hydro Power Project, while two individuals from their village received compensation. The learned Single Judge dismissed their writ petition, citing lack of evidence and jurisdictional issues.

Findings of Court:

The court upheld the learned Single Judge's findings that the Loss Assessment Report of February 2008 is final and that the Deputy Commissioner had no authority to reassess the land.

Issues: The main issues included the validity of the Loss Assessment Report, the jurisdiction of the Deputy Commissioner to reassess land, and the applicability of the doctrine of election to the appellants' claims.

Ratio Decidendi: The court reasoned that the Loss Assessment Report had not been challenged and thus attained finality, and the Deputy Commissioner lacked jurisdiction to order a re-assessment. The appellants' acceptance of prior compensation barred them from making further claims.

Result: Appeal dismissed.

JUDGMENT :

Heard Mr. D. Mazumdar, learned senior counsel, partly physically and partly through video conferencing mode, assisted by Mr. S.K. Deori, learned counsel for the appellants. None appears on call for respondent nos.1 and 5. Also heard Mr. P.K. Tiwari, learned senior counsel, assisted by Mr. K. Saxena, learned counsel for respondent nos.2 and 3; and Ms. R. Basar, learned Govt. Advocate appearing for respondent nos. 4, 6 and 7.

2. This intra Court appeal is preferred against the judgment and order dated 07.08.2023, passed by the learned Single Judge in WP(C) 674(AP)/2017. The appellants were the petitioners in the said writ petition.

Submissions of the learned senior counsel for the appellants:

3. The learned senior counsel for the appellants has referred to the voluminous documents appended to the memo of appeal as well as on the affidavit of the respondent nos.2 and 3 and has advanced extensive submissions on behalf of the appellants.

4. It was submitted that a large volume of land is under submergence zone for construction of the Subansiri Hydro Power Project (SHPP for short), which is undertaken by the National Hydro Power Corporation (NHPC for short). The appellants are the project affected families (PAFs for short) of Dibe village. It was submitted that two persons from Dibe village of the appellants were awarded compensation as PAFs, but no compensation was assessed and/or awarded for any of the 32 (thirty two) appellants herein.

5. It was submitted that the Deputy Commissioner, Aalo had constituted a Board consisting of (i) the EAC-cum-Nodal Officer (respondent no.7), (ii) HDO, Likabali/Gensi, (iii) ADO, Gensi, (iv) RFO, Gensi, (v) one representative from NHPC, and (vi) Mr. Y. Lombi, Recorder Kanungo. The said Board had made field enquiry and found that the land of the appellants fell within the submergence zone. Thereafter, the authorities assessed the compensation payable to the appellants. It was submitted that not only the NHPC authorities had refused to participate in the re-assessment process undertaken by the said Board, but also rejected the recommended a sum of Rs.79,87,44,640/- as compensation for the appellants. Accordingly, the appellants have filed the said writ petition, being W.P.(C) 674(AP)/2017.

6. It was submitted that the judgment in the appeal has been assailed, amongst others, on the ground that the learned Single Judge had held that the Loss Assessment Report dated 10.03.2014, prepared by the Board wherein 615 Ha (Hectare) land had been identified as land of Dibe village that was falling under the submergence area and had lacked technical expertise.

7. The submissions made by the learned senior counsel for the appellants were summarized as under:-

    a. The respondent nos. 2 and 3, having not participated in the re-assessment process and having not questioned the said Loss Assessment Report, it was not open to the respondent nos.2 and 3 to refuse payment of compensation to the projected affected families i.e. the appellants.
    b. The respondent nos. 2 and 3 are silent as to whether or not any compensation or part thereof was paid in respect of land of Dibe village, which fell within the submergence zone. If any compensation was paid for land of Dibe Village, to whom the amount was paid. Moreover, if compensation was paid in respect of the appellants to some other person or persons, then the State should pay compensation to the appellants and recover the money from those who have been unjustly enriched.

    c. If this Court concurs with the finding of the learned Single Judge that the Loss Assessment Report was not by an expert committee, the correct recourse would be to appoint another committee by constituting it of experts in the field.


8. In support of above, it was elaborated that two persons from the appellants’ village were paid compensation, but the respondent nos.2 and 3 do not say why land of two persons of the village








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