Compensation rights in land acquisition are determined by the nature of ownership and legal claims, emphasizing the need for proper apportionment according to respective interests.

JUDGMENT AND ORDER :

DEVASHIS BARUAH, J.

Heard Mr. P. S. Deka, the learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. P. Bhattacharya, the learned counsel for the petitioners. Mr. B. J. Talukdar, the learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. P. K. Medhi, the learned counsel appears on behalf of the respondent Nos. 2 & 3; Mr. J. I. Borbhuiya, the learned counsel appears on behalf of the respondent Nos.10 to 15 and Mr. C. Baruah, the learned counsel appears on behalf of the respondent Nos.16 & 17.

2. The present writ petition has been filed challenging the order dated 30.06.2022 passed by the learned District Judge, Jorhat in LA Case No.01/2018 whereby while adjudicating a proceedings under Section 3H(4) of the National Highways Act 1956 (for short, “the Act of 1956”), the compensation has been apportioned amongst the three groups and the petitioners have only been held entitled to 25% of the compensation.

3. The materials on record show that a plot of land admeasuring 2 bighas 2 kathas 19 lechas covered by Dag No. 3, 33, 24/313, 25/313 under PP No.3 of Hazari Mouza, Nokari Bamun Gaon in the District of Jorhat was acquired by the National Highway Authority under the Act of 1956. The compensation was accordingly determined by the Competent Authority in terms with Section 3G(1) of the Act of 1956. Three sets of claimants laid claim to the compensation. As there was a dispute as regards the entitlement of the compensation, the competent authority referred the matter to the learned District Judge, Jorhat for adjudication in terms with Section 3H(4) of the Act of 1956.

4. In the backdrop of the above, it is now pertinent to take note of the respective claims as set out by the three sets of claimants.

5. The first group of the claimants was the petitioners who admittedly were the owners of the plots of land. The second group of claimants was those occupancy tenants, whose names were not recorded in the record of rights. The third group of claimants were statutory tenants under the Assam (Temporarily Settled Areas) Tenancy Act, 1971 (for short, ‘the Act of 1971’) and by dint of their possession were entitled to claim ownership in terms with Section 23 of the Act of 1971.

6. It is relevant to take note of at this stage that in respect to the acquisition of the land in question, the Notification under Section 3D of the Act of 1956 was published in the Gazette of India, Extraordinary on 22.07.2011. The significance of the said Gazette Notification is that the land on the date of publication of such Notification vests absolutely in the Central Government free from all encumbrances.

7. At this stage, it is also pertinent to take note of that while the land has already vested upon the Central Government by virtue of the Notification issued under Section 3D(1) of the Act of 1956 on 22.07.2011, the Deputy Commissioner vide an order dated 23.05.2016 passed in TSA No.17/2013 granted ownership rights under Section 23 of the Act of 1971 to the third group of the claimants. An Appeal there against was filed by the first group of the claimants, i.e. the petitioners before the Appellate Forum, i.e. the Assam Board of Revenue, but the said Appeal was dismissed thereby upholding the order of the Deputy Commissioner, Jorhat, in TSA No.17/2013.

8. Be that as it may, the learned District Judge by the impugned order dated 30.06.2022 passed in LA Case No.01/2018 apportioned the compensation thereby granting 25% in favour of the first group of claimants, i.e. the petitioners; 10% to the second group of claimants, i.e. the respondent Nos.4 to 9 and 65% to the third group of claimants, i.e. the respondent Nos.10 to 15. It is under such circumstances, the present writ petition has been filed.

9. Before proceeding to adjudicate the dispute, it is pertinent to take note of that the Act of 1956 though provides that the Principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction within the limits of whose jurisdiction the land is situated would be the competent Court to decide a proceedings under Secti