Failure to follow proper procedures for land acquisition and non-payment of compensation violates principles of natural justice, justifying court intervention despite delays.

Judgment :

(KARDAK ETE, J.)

Heard Mr. A.K. Das, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. S.Dutta, learned standing counsel, Revenue Department, for respondent No. 1, Mr. B.J. Talukdar, learned Additional Senior Government Advocate for the respondents No. 2, 3, 4 and 5 and Ms. A. Gayan, learned CGC for the respondents No. 6 and 7.

2. This writ petition is filed by the petitioner (now deceased) namely, Jogesh Chandra Paul and on his death represented by his legal heir Mrs. Sabita Paul. The petitioner has prayed for a direction to the respondent authorities to pay compensation with solatium at the present market value of the land measuring 13 bighas 3 kathas and 16 lechas covered by K.P. Patta No.243 Dag No.1921 and 203 of village Maidam Gaon, Mouza-Beltola, District-Kamrup (M), Guwahati in LA Case No.9/68-69 belongs to the petitioner, acquired by the respondents for construction and setting up River Research Centre (now the Office of Brahmaputra Board).

3. The case, in brief, is that the petitioner is the recorded pattadar of land measuring 13 bighas, 3 kathas and 16 lechas of K.P. Patta No.243 of Dag No.1921 and 203 of Village- Maidam Gaon, Mouza- Beltola, District-Kamrup(M), Guwahati, Assam. It is an ancestral property and prior to acquisition, it was being cultivated by the deceased petitioner and his family members.

4. It is contended by the petitioner that his aforesaid land was acquired vide LA Case No.9/68-69 in the year 1968. However, when no land compensation was paid, even after repeated representations before the Collector, which were submitted on 16.01.1972, 20.10.1972 and 22.02.1997, the petitioner had to approach this Court. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner obtained certain information through RTI only in the year 2012 and accordingly, this writ petition is filed in the year 2012 being the lawful owner of the aforesaid land. The respondent authorities have never notified about the requisition/acquisition of the land by the government for setting up River Research Centre (now Brahmaputra Board, Assam) nor was he aware of any publication in the newspaper or the official gazette. The respondent authorities ought to have taken the legal recourse of notification and subsequent enquiry under the provision of Land Acquisition Act, 1894.

5. The petitioner contends that the deceased petitioner resides almost 30 kms away from the said land and was never aware of the acquisition proceedings being contemplated by the government and hence, could not avail himself of the legal provision under the Land Acquisition Act to ventilate his grievance. More so, no proceedings were initiated as per the provision of Land Acquisition Act, 1894. It is contended that the deceased petitioner having learnt about the acquisition, visited the Office of the then Deputy Commissioner and sought the details about the same but was not responded. In the meantime, the construction of the building of River Research Centre (now Brahmaputra Board, Assam) was carried out without there being any proceedings for acquisition.

6. Mr. A.K. Das, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the name of the deceased petitioner was reflected in the Chitha and the remarks passed by the Circle Officer of the concerned Revenue area undisputedly fortifies the deceased petitioner be