You are on page 1of 4

NAME OF THE PARTIES

PETITIONER: Bhadaram Mikir & 27 others.

RESPONDENT: The State of Assam


Represented by the Principal Secretary to the Government of Assam, Department of Revenue,
Dispur, Guwahati-6, District: Kamrup (M), Assam.
2. The Deputy Commissioner, Kamrup (M), Kacharighat, Guwahati-1, District: Kamrup (M),
Assam.
3. The Circle Officer, Sonapur Revenue Circle, Sonapur, District: Kamrup (M) Assam.
4. The Union of India, Represented by the Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of
Home Affairs, South Block, New Delhi-1.
5.The Commandant, 33rd BN, ITBP, MHA, Government of India.
FACTS OF THE CASE
 Petitioner filled this application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the
petitioners pray for setting aside and quashing the land acquisition proceeding in L.A.
This case is initiated under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, "1894 Act") and
the award dated 26.03.2015, including the notices issued in connection with Boundary
Case No.60/2014-15, as being illegal, without jurisdiction, nullity and void ab initio and
for a direction to the respondents to initiate land acquisition proceeding for the land
involved in L.A. Case No.22/2013 under the Right to Fair Compensation & Transparency
in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (for short, "2013 Act")
 The case of the petitioners, is that they are residents of Village- Korchia NC under Mouza
Panbari in the District of Kamrup (M) and that the Deputy Secretary to the Government
of Assam, Revenue and Disaster Management (L.R.) Department issued a Notification
dated on 04.05.2013 under Section 4 of the 1894 Act in connection with land acquisition
proceeding in L.A. Case No.22/2013 indicating that land mentioned and described in the
said Notification is likely to be needed for a public purpose, namely, for setting up of
Battalion Headquarter of Indo-Tibetan Border Police (ITBP) in Sonapur and that if any
objection to the acquisition is filed under Section 5A of the 1894 Act by any person
interested on or before 30(thirty) days before the Collector, Kamrup (M), the same will
be considered.
 The petitioners pleaded that though on 01.01.2014 the 2013 Act came into force, instead
of proceeding as per provisions of 2013 Act, authorities issued notice dated 28.04.2014
under Section 5A of the 1894 Act and thereby continued with the aforesaid land
acquisition proceeding. After affording a hearing, an order was passed by the Collector
on 05.05.2014. Thereafter, a declaration was made under Section 6 of the 1894 Act. On
26.03.2015, a notice under Section 12(2) of the 1894 Act was issued stating that an award
was made by the Collector on 26.03.2015 under Section 11 of the 1894 Act indicating
therein the amount of compensation payable. It is the case of the petitioners that the
award dated 26.03.2015 was not furnished to the petitioners and they came to know
regarding the award only from the aforesaid notices under Section 12(2) of the 1894 Act.
Subsequently, notices were issued by the Circle Officer, Sonapur Revenue Circle in
Boundary Case No.60/2014-15 to the petitioners informing them that the ITBP-33
Battalion, Sonapur had applied for demarcation of the land mentioned and described in
the notices and, therefore, the boundary would be shown to the applicant ITBP-33
Battalion on 28.08.2015 at 11:00 AM and that it was also mentioned in the said notices
that if they had any objection, they might raise such objection by remaining present at the
appointed time and place along with supporting documents, failing which steps would be
taken as per Rules.
 In the affidavit filed by the respondent No.2, it is stated that the Government had
approved declaration under Section 6(1) of the 1894 Act, subject to the provision of
Section 24(1)(a) of the 2013 Act and communication was already made with the
Inspector General, North East Frontier Headquarter, ITBP, who had made the request on
29.10.2012 for acquisition of the land for construction of Battalion Headquarter, ITBP at
Sonapur.
 The respondent No. 4 and 5, in their affidavit, had stated that they had deposited a sum of
Rs.1,74,82,135/-, being the approved land acquisition estimate. It is averred that for
almost a year, there was no communication from the Deputy Commissioner, Kamrup.
The acquired land was officially handed over by the Circle Officer, Sonapur to ITBP vide
letter dated 18.06.2015 and the ITBP had stationed itself on the acquired land and a joint
survey was proposed on 28.08.2015.
 The respondent No.1 also, more or less, took the same stand as taken by the respondent
No.2. In addition, it is stated that the Deputy Commissioner, Kamrup, by a letter dated
28.10.2015, had forwarded the land acquisition estimate as per 2013 Act and had
requested the ITBP authority to deposit the differential amount taking into account the
amount already deposited by the ITBP. Revised land acquisition estimate amounting to
Rs.4,32,81,444/- was forwarded vide communication dated 07.04.2016 addressed to the
Deputy Commissioner, Kamrup, based on which Rs.2,57,99,309/- was deposited by the
ITBP in favour of the Deputy Commissioner, Kamrup.
 In the affidavit-in-reply filed by the petitioners against the affidavit filed by the
respondent No.1, it is reiterated that continuation of the land acquisition proceeding after
01.01.2014 was without jurisdiction. It is stated that the market value was not determined
as per Section 26 of the 2013 Act and instead was fixed by taking the Government
notified value for registration. It is also stated that there is anomaly in the acquisition
proposal as about 17 Bighas of land belonging to the petitioner No.23 was left out,
though the same was within the proposed acquired land.
 Another affidavit-in-opposition was filed by the respondent No.2 stating that land
proposed to be acquired was valued at Rs.37,500/- per Bigha by the Circle Officer,
Sonapur Revenue Circle and accordingly, after getting the approval from the Government
of Assam, the Deputy Commissioner fixed the value of the land at Rs.37,500/- per Bigha.
By a letter dated 01.02.2014, the Revenue and Disaster Management Department
requested the Deputy Commissioner, Kamrup (M) to re-determine the compensation
amount as per 2013 Act and thereafter, the Deputy Commissioner (M) fixed the value of
the land at Rs.50,000/- per Bigha. It is also stated that the land was valued at Rs.37,500/-
per Bigha (in Faring Class of land) based on zonal valuation fixed in the year 2011. It is
further stated that the land belongs to non-cadastral (NC) village, which is situated in a
hilly area, approximately 1 to 1.5 Km away from the National Highway-37. Sale Deeds
were not found available for lack of transaction of land in the said village and, therefore,
comparison of the land value of adjacent villages, which are cadastral surveyed village,
will be of no assistance to determine the value of the acquired land in question. In the
affidavit-in-reply filed by the petitioners against the aforesaid affidavit of respondent
No.2, it is stated that the land value of Rs.50,000/- per Bigha was not fixed in terms of the
provisions of 2013 Act and that the same was fixed by the Deputy Commissioner,
Kamrup (M) by order dated 17.04.2014 on the basis of the land value fixed by the
Revenue and Disaster Management Department, communicated by letter dated
06.12.2013. It is averred that the respondent No.3 had submitted details in respect of
market value of the land as per provision of Section 26 of the 2013 Act and in the year
2011, 2012 and 2013, value per Bigha was fixed at Rs.4,00,000/- and in the year 2012,
2013 and 2015, it was fixed at Rs.5,00,000/- by taking into consideration sale deeds. It is
also stated that in the year 2005, land was acquired at Karchia (C) for Seema Suraksha
Bal at Rs.4,19,000/- per Bigha.
 The undisputed facts are that Notification under Section 4 of the 1894 Act was issued in
respect of 199 Bighas 4 Kathas 8 Lechas of Periodic Patta Land and 64 Bighas 3 Kathas
12 Lechas of Annual Patta land in village-Karchia, Non-Cadastral (NC), Mouza- Panbari
for setting up of Battalion Headquarter of ITBP.