Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Gau) 1158

THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Kardak Ete, J.
Hannan Ali And Ors – Petitioners
Versus
The State Of Assam Represented By Special Commissioner And Spl Secretary To The Govt Of Assam Public Works Building And Nh Dept And Ors – Respondents
WP(C) 4667 of 2023, WP(C) 4560 of 2023
Decided On : 09-06-2026

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Md. M H Choudhury, Mr. S N Ahmed,Mr Monzur K Choudhury,Mr. P Chakraborty, R. Baruah,Tanzim L. Choudhury
For the Respondent: GA, ASSAM, SC, PWD

Occupants of government land without proprietary interest lack an enforceable statutory right to claim compensation under land acquisition legislation for the demolition of structures, as such entitlements are strictly tied to the valid acquisition of legal property interests, though authorities may provide ex gratia aid on humanitarian grounds.

Headnote:(A) Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 - Sections 3(c) and 46 - Schedule II - Compensation for demolition of structures - Claim by non-title holders - Structures situated on government land - Entitlement to compensation under statutory framework is inextricably linked to the process of land acquisition - In absence of proprietary right or title over the land, participants cannot claim statutory compensation purely on the basis of loss of livelihood or occupation. (Paras 22, 24, 25, 26)

(B) Administrative Law - Writ jurisdiction - Claim for compensation by occupants lacking land ownership - Authority to provide financial assistance based on humanitarian grounds rests with the administration - Court cannot interfere to grant compensation in the absence of a legally enforceable right or statutory provision. (Paras 28, 29, 30)

Facts of the case:
The petitioners operated commercial structures situated on government premises. These structures were cleared to facilitate a road development project. The petitioners sought compensation for their losses, asserting their status as 'affected families' under the applicable land acquisition law, arguing that their business served as their primary source of livelihood. The authorities argued that compensation was provided only to recorded land-holders through a negotiated settlement process, and the petitioners possessed no ownership interest in the land.

Findings of Court:
The court observed that the acquisition process was conducted via negotiated settlement for private holdings. Since the petitioners occupied government land and held no legal title, their claim for compensation under the statutory framework was not maintainable. The court held that while the authorities could consider providing ex gratia support based on policy or humanitarian grounds, the petitioners could not demand such compensation as a matter of legal right.

Issues: The main issues were whether occupants of government land possess a statutory right to claim compensation for livelihood loss upon demolition of their structures for public infrastructure projects, and whether they qualify as 'affected families' under the governing land acquisition legislation.

Ratio Decidendi: Statutory compensation rights under land acquisition legislation are strictly dependent on the valid acquisition of legal interests in land. Without proprietary rights or statutory recognition of occupancy status, individuals cannot enforce monetary claims for the removal of structures located on government property, as the statutory framework is intended to address the displacement of legally recognized land-holders and identified stakeholders.

Result: Petitions dismissed; respondents permitted to consider the representation on humanitarian grounds within three months.

Table of Content
1. overview of parties, case background, and admitted facts regarding the demolition of structures on government land. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 19)
2. petitioners' contention: right to compensation for livelihood loss under rfctlarr act and parity with other project-affected persons. (Para 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11)
3. respondents' counterargument: no statutory right for compensation as structures stood on government land without valid title. (Para 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17)
4. examination of the asom mala project framework and the applicability of the rfctlarr act scope. (Para 18 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25)
5. legal determination: no enforceable right to compensation exists where land acquisition is absent and occupancy is illegal. (Para 26 , 27 , 28 , 29)
6. final order dismissing the petition while directing consideration of humanitarian aid for the petitioners. (Para 30 , 31)

JUDGMENT :

Kardak Ete, J.

Heard Mr. M. K. Choudhury, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. P. Nayak, learned Additional Advocate General for the respondent Nos. 1 & 5 and Mr. B. J. Talukdar, learned Government Advocate for the State respondent Nos. 2, 3 & 4.

2. Having regard to the similitude of the issues involved in these two writ petitions, the same are heard analogously and disposed of by this common judgment and order.

3. By filing the present writ petitions, the petitioners, who are shopkeepers, have prayed for a direction to the respondent authorities to assess and pay compensation under the provisions of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as the “RFCTLARR Act, 2013”), on account of demolition/removal of their respective shop structures situated at Silbori Market (Silbori Gaon Panchayat Office Compound) and Silbori Daily Market, under Pub- Sialmari Mouza, Dalgaon Revenue Circle, District Darrang, for widening and upgradation of the Dalgaon-Fatasimulu Road under the Asom Mala Project. In the alternative, the petitioners have prayed for a direction to the respondent authorities to dispose of the representation dated 12.06.2023 claiming compensation for the losses sustained by them on account of such demolition.

4. The case projected by the petitioners in both the writ petitions is that they have been carrying on their respective businesses for more than two decades from pucca RCC shop structures situated at Silbori Market (Silbori Gaon Panchayat Office Compound) and Silbori Daily Market under Pub-Sialmari Mouza, Dalgaon Revenue Circle, District Darrang. According to the petitioners, the said shops constituted their sole source of livelihood and had been constructed by them from their own resources.

5. The petitioners contend that the Government of Assam, Public Works (Roads) Department issued a notification dated 20.01.2021, published in the Assam Gazette on 22.01.2021, providing for acquisition of land through direct purchase by way of negotiated settlement for improvement and upgradation of State Highways and Major District Roads under the Asom Mala Programme and Externally Aided Projects. According to the petitioners, the said notification envisaged payment of compensation to affected families in terms of the provisions of the RFCTLARR Act, 2013.

6. It is the case of the petitioners that pursuant to the aforesaid notification and for the project, the respondent authorities undertook measurement of lands, structures and commercial establishments situated alongside the Dalgaon-Fatasimulu Road and, thereafter, demolished the shops belonging to the petitioners for widening and development of the road. According to the petitioners, prior to such demolition, assurances were given by the authorities that compensation would be paid to all affected persons.

7. The petitioners further contend that although compensation has been paid to several persons whose lands, houses and commercial establishments were affected by the same project,

Click Here to Read the rest of this document