The court emphasized the need for timely implementation of land allotment recommendations pursuant to land acquisition laws, reinforcing accountability in administrative resolutions.

ORDER

21-08-2025 Heard Shri F. K. R. Ahmed, learned counsel for the petitioner in WP(C)/1574/2025 and Shri N. I. Khan, learned counsel for the petitioner in WP(C)/2652/2025. Also heard Shri J. Handique, learned State Counsel and Shri S.

Das, learned Standing Counsel, AIDC.

The grievance of the petitioners in these two cases is with the allegation of violation of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Re-settlement Act, 2013 . It is the case of the petitioners that in spite of acquisition of land, no alternative plot was allotted to them. When this matter had come up for consideration yesterday, Shri Handique, learned State Counsel has placed before this Court a Minutes of Meeting, as per which the grievances of the petitioners appear to have been redressed. On the aforesaid contention, time was granted to the learned counsel for the petitioners to seek instructions.

Both the learned counsel for the petitioners have submitted that though in principle the grievances appear to have been redressed, such decisions were also taken earlier which did not fructify in reality and therefore they have expressed an apprehension.

The Minutes of Meeting which have been placed on record contain, amongst others, the following resolutions:

“ Resolution 4: The Committee recommended the proposal for allotment of land measuring 2B-0K-0L Covered by Dag No. 726 of Badiasicha village under Lokrai mouza of Sipajhar Revenue Circle in favour of Azizur Rahman, S/o-Late Abed Ali.

Resolution 5: The Committee recommended the proposal for allotment of land measuring 1B-0K-0L covered by Dag No. 726 of Badiasicha village under Lokrai mouza of Sipajhar Revenue Circle in favour of Nurul Iman, S/0-Jamsed Ali.”

On perusal of the aforesaid Minutes of Meeting held on 08.08.2025, it appears that there are clear resolutions of recommendation for allotment of land to the petitioners. In view of the above, this Court is of the opinion that the grievances of the petitioners have substantially been redressed. Accordingly, there is no requirement to continue with these writ petitions.