Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010082422025 2025:GAU-AS:9642-DB THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WA/141/2025 1: SRI GANGA DHAR DAS AND 3 ORS S/O LATE DINA NATH DAS, 2: NIRANJAN CHANDRA DAS S/O LATE DINA NATH DAS BOTH R/O VILL. KALJAR P.O. BARBALA DIST. BARPETA ASSAM PIN 781316 3: HRISHIKESH DAS DIST. BARPETA. 4: HOMESWAR DAS BOTH THE APPELLANT NO 3 AND 4 ARE S/O LATE KHANINDRA CHANDRA DAS R/O VILL. KALIJAR P.O. BARBALA DIST. BARPETA ASSAM PIN 78131 VERSUS 1: THE UNION OF INDIA AND 7 ORS REPRESENTED BY THE SECY., MINISTRY OF ROAD TRANSPORT AND HIGHWAYS, NEW DELHI, PIN 110001 2:THE NATIONAL HIGHWAYS AUTHORITY OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY NEW DELHI PIN 110075 3:THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM REVENUE AND DISASTER MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT ASSAM DISPUR GUWAHATI 6 4:THE COMMISSIONER LOWER ASSAM DIVISION GUWAHATI 01 5:THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BARPETA DIST. BARPETA ASSAM PIN 781301 6:THE ADDITIONAL DEPUTY COMMISSIONER CUM COMPETENT Page No.# 2/3 AUTHORITY NATIONAL HIGHWAYS AUTHORITY OF INDIA BARPETA DIST. BARPETA ASSAM PIN 781301 7:THE PROJECT DIRECTOR NATIONAL HIGHWAYS AUTHORITY OF INDIA BONGAIGAON DIST. BONGAIGAON ASSAM PIN 783380 8:THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER PWD BUILDING DIVISION NALBARI DIST. NALBARI ASSAM PIN 78130 For the Appellant(s) : Mr. N.N. Upadhyaya, Advocate. For the Respondent(s) : Ms. N. Bordoloi, Standing Counsel, Revenue Department for respondent No.3. : Mr. S. Barua, Government Advocate, Assam for respondent Nos.4, 5 & 6. : Mrs. R. Bora, Standing Counsel, NHAI for respondent No.7. : Mr. D. Nath, Standing Counsel, PWD for respondent No.8. – B E F O R E – HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. ASHUTOSH KUMAR HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN DEV CHOUDHURY 28.07.2025 (Ashutosh Kumar, CJ) The appellants have laid a limited challenge to the order dated 12.03.2025 passed by a learned Single Judge in WP(C) No.3181/2016, whereby the learned Single Judge has not addressed the issue of payment of solatium and other amounts awardable to the appellants, which would be based on the fixation of the valuation of land. The Arbitrator had ruled that the assessment of the building needs to be made as per the prevailing market value as on the date of taking possession of the land by the competent authority. This assessment has been done and the value assessed is not disputed. Some part of the assessed value of the land was not paid for which the learned Single Judge directed for immediate disbursal of the same. Page No.# 3/3 However, what aggrieved the appellants is the non-payment of solatium and other considerations, which are part of the compensation, which is required to be paid to the appellants. The learned counsel for the respondent/State submits that it is an old matter and, therefore, no solatium is required to be paid, which is no argument. Taking a holistic view, we modify the order of the learned Single Judge to the extent that the amount payable to the appellants would include solatium, which ought to be paid to the appellant along with the balance amount of Rs.2,28,669/- (Rupees Two Lakhs Twenty Eight Thousand Six Hundred Sixty Nine). The appeal stands disposed off with the afore-noted modification in the order passed by the learned Single Judge. JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE Comparing Assistant