Page No.# 1/5 GAHC010027862015 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/7676/2015 MONIR UDDIN BARBHUIYA and 5 ORS. S/O LT. JUNAB ALI BARBHUIYA 2: JAMIR UDDIN BARBHUIYA 3: AZIR UDDIN BARBHUIYA 4: FORASH UDDIN BARBHUIYA 5: FAKHAR UDDIN BARBHUIYA 6: HILAL UDDIN BARBHUIYA ALL ARE S/O LT. FAYJUR RAHMAN BARBHUIYA ALL ARE R/O RONGPUR PT.III P.O. SAHABAD P.S. KATLICHERRA DIST- HAILAKANDI ASSA VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 6 ORS TO BE REP. BY THE PRINCIPAL SECY./SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM, IRRIGATION DEPTT., DISPUR, GHY-6 2:THE UNDER SECY. WORKS TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM IRRIGATION DEPTT. CHANDMARI GHY-3 Page No.# 2/5 3:THE CHIEF ENGINEER IRRIGATION DEPTT. CHANDMARI GHY-3 4:THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER HAILAKANDI DIVISION IRRIGATION DIST- HAILAKANDI ASSAM 5:THE DY. COMMISSIONER HAILAKANDI P.O. P.S. and DIST- HAILAKANDI ASSAM 6:THE COMMISSIONER and SECY. TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM REVENUE L.R. DEPTT. DISPUR GHY-6 7:THE UNDER SECY. TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM REVENUE L.R. DEPTT. L.A. BRANCH DISPUR GHY- Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. S ROY, MR. B K DAS,MR. M H LASKAR Advocate for the Respondent : MR. N UPADHAYAY (SC, IRRIGATION DEPT.), MR. B J TALUKDAR, SC, REVENUE DEPARTMENT,MR. J HANDIQUE,GA, ASSAM BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR MEDHI ORDER 19.02.2026 The approach to this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been made with the following prayer: “In the premises aforesaid, it is therefore most respectfully prayed that Your Lordships may graciously be pleased to admit this petition, call for Page No.# 3/5 the records, issue rule calling upon the respondents to show cause as to why: a) a writ in the nature of mandamus should not be issued directing the respondent authorities, particularly the Respondent No. 2 & 3, to initiate fresh proceedings for acquisition of lands of the petitioners in accordance with The Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 as per their present requirement; b) a writ in the nature of mandamus should not be issued directing the respondent authorities to determine the amount of adequate compensation afresh against acquisition of the lands of the petitioners in accordance with The Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 and to pay the same to the petitioners in a time bound manner for the quantum of land already under use of the department including the compensation for continued occupation since 1985; c) a writ in the nature of mandamus should not be issued directing the respondent authorities to give back/return the unused portion of the acquired lands presently not in use of the department as the same is not required for any public purpose by way of de-requisition as per law. and/or d) Pass any such other or further order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the interest of justice and under Page No.# 4/5 the facts and circumstances of the case. AND Upon perusal of the records and hearing the parties, the Rule may be made absolute.” 2. As per the facts projected, the petitioners are the owners of certain agricultural land measuring 5 bighas in village Sahabad in the district of Hailakandi. The aforesaid land was the subject matter of acquisition in a process initiated in the year 1983. However, due to some technicalities, the initial estimate was lapsed and thereafter, fresh estimate was made. The purpose for the acquisition was for construction of an Office of the Irrigation Department. It is the case of the petitioners that while the land was acquired, only 50% of the land has been utilized for the purpose of construction of the Office and 50% is remaining unused. The compensation amount has also not been finally assessed and paid. 3. I have heard Shri MH Laskar, learned counsel for the petitioners. I have also heard Shri SS Roy, learned State Counsel and Shri N. Upadhyay, learned Standing Counsel, Irrigation Department. 4. Shri Laskar, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioners are legally entitled for the due compensation in accordance with law and the land being acquired in the year 1983, non-release of the same has caused immense hardships. He has also contended that since only 50% of the land which was the subject matter of acquisition has been utilized, the rest 50% should be returned to the petitioners. In this connection, he has referred to the provisions of Section 101 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. Page No.# 5/5 5. Both Shri Roy, learned State Counsel and Shri Upadhyay, learned Standing Counsel, Irrigation Department have submitted that there is no dispute to the aspect of acquisition of land which was for a public purpose, namely, for the construction of an Office for the Irrigation Department. It is also submitted that due to some technical lapse, the initial estimate could not be brought to a logical conclusion. However, in the year 2025, a fresh process for assessment has been taken up. 6. Shri Laskar, learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that his clients are also aware of the fresh process which has been initiated in the year 2025. 7. Since, there is no dispute in the Bar that a fresh process has been initiated for assessment of the compensation, this writ petition is disposed of by directing the completion of the process expeditiously and preferably within a period of 90 days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. Apart from assessing the compensation, a Speaking Order is also required to be passed on the aspect of the portion of land which according to the petitioners has remained unutilized. 8. It is needless to add that the petitioners, if aggrieved by adequacy or otherwise of the compensation would have the right to approach the appropriate forum under the law. 9. The writ petition accordingly stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant