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

2026 Supreme(Gau) 88

THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
KARDAK ETE, J.
Gopendra Namasudra S/o Late Dayal Nomosudra – Appellant
Versus
The Union of India Rep. by the Home Secretary, New Delhi – Respondent
W.P. (C) No. 5297 of 2018
Decided On : 28-01-2026

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellants : P.D. Nair, G. Alam, H. Rohman, J. Khanom, D. Nag
For the Respondent: S.C. Keyal

Authorities are obligated to complete rehabilitation of displaced individuals under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition Act, reflecting the right to livelihood and property.

Headnote:(A) Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 - Petitioners sought completion of rehabilitation due to displacement caused by Indo-Bangladesh border fencing - Authorities issued Provisional Allotment Certificates but faced resistance in resettlement process. (Paras 4, 6, 16)

(B) Legal Obligation - State authorities failed to rehabilitate displaced families over a decade; court directed completion of rehabilitation within six months, reaffirming right to livelihood and property. (Paras 16, 17)

Facts of the case:
Petitioners claimed land ownership for residential and agricultural use, but fencing restricted access and resources, leading to vivisection of their properties. (Paras 3, 5)

Findings of Court:
Court directed State authorities to ensure rehabilitation of all displaced families within six months, addressing the failure to act despite long-standing displacement. (Paras 16, 17)

Issues: The main issues included failure to rehabilitate displaced families and the authority's duty in enforcing land acquisition laws. (Paras 6, 10)

Ratio Decidendi: The court concluded that the non-completion of rehabilitation has unequivocally caused prolonged hardship, necessitating immediate action by authorities to fulfill their statutory obligations. (Paras 16, 17)

Result: Writ petition disposed of with a directive to complete rehabilitation in six months.

Table of Content
1. landowners claim deprivation of property rights. (Para 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7)
2. petitioners seek timely rehabilitation and resettlement. (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 11)
3. court observes failures in the rehabilitation process. (Para 12 , 13 , 14 , 15)
4. court directs necessary steps for rehabilitation. (Para 16)
5. writ petition disposed with a time-bound directive. (Para 17 , 18)

JUDGMENT :

KARDAK ETE, J.

1. Heard Mr. G. Alam, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. B. J. Talukdar, learned Senior Counsel for the State respondent Nos. 6, 9, 10 & 11; Mr. R. K. D. Choudhury, learned DSGI for the respondent Nos. 1, 2, 3, 7 & 8 and Mr. A. Bhattacharjee, learned Standing Counsel, Revenue Department, for respondent Nos. 4 & 5.

2. By filing this writ petition, the petitioners have prayed for a direction to the respondent authorities to complete the process of rehabilitation and resettlement as initiated vide the Provisional Allotment Certificate of Ceiling Surplus Land and Handing Over of Possession dated 23.02.2016 in any other appropriate area under Katigorah Revenue Circle, as the petitioners have been rendered homeless due to the construction of Indo-Bangladesh International Border Fencing. The petitioners have also sought for a direction to acquire their land which has been utilized for erection of Indo-Bangladesh Border Fence in terms of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013.

3. Briefly put, the petitioners claim to be the owners of plots of land situated at Jalalpur and Mahadevpur Gaon Panchayat in the District of Cachar, Assam, which they inherited from their respective ancestors as well as by way of purchase from their erstwhile landowners. The petitioners were utilizing the said land either for residential or for cultivation and fishing purposes.

4. In terms of the decision of the Government of India to secure the international border, including the Indo-Bangladesh border, against infiltration etc., the authorities have constructed the road along and around the international border. Thereafter, in order to guard the Indo-Bangladesh Border, the Government of India had further decided to erect border fencing, which was accordingly constructed in the year 2006 along the Indo-Bangladesh border, including the stretches passing through Jalalpur and Mahadevpur Gaon Panchayat areas in the district of Cachar. As a consequence of the erection of the said fencing, the lands of the petitioners have fallen outside the border fencing.

5. It is the contention of the petitioners that ingress and egress to and from their lands have been restricted by the BSF and they are unable to avail themselves of welfare programmes and government schemes as their lands now fall outside the Indo-Bangladesh border fencing. It is contended that due to their lands being pushed outside the border fencing, the petitioners have been deprived from completely utilizing and enjoying their properties which is a clear deprivation of life and property without authority of law, inasmuch as no acquisition proceedings have been initiated.

6. Having realized that the land of the petitioners had fallen outside the Indo- Bangladesh international border fencing, the respondent authorities of the State of Assam issued a Provisional Allotment Certificate of Ceiling Surplus Land and Handing Over of Possession vide order dated 23.02.2016 for rehabilitation of 174 affected families, including the petitioners herein, who are residing outside the Indo-Bangladesh border fencing in different border line mouzas. The respondent authorities have proposed allotment of Ceiling Surplus Land under Mouza and Talkor Grant, Pargonah-Gumrah under Katigorah Revenue Circle in favour of the petitioners and formally recommended allotment of an area of 10 Kathas to each affected family by issuing separate orders. The physical possession of the allotted land was also handed over to the petitioners separately. The s

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