Page No.# 1/8 GAHC010092782025 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/2482/2025 FIRUJA KHATUN AND ANR D/O LATE SAHID HUSSAIN @ SEIKH SAHID HUSSAIN C/O SOMIR ALI R/O HARMOTI NO. 1, P.O.BAGARI,KALIABOR P.S.JAKHALABANDHA DIST.NAGAON, PIN-782136 2: KHUDEJA KHATUN D/OLATE SAHID HUSSAIN @ SEIKH SAHID HUSSAIN C/O JALIL UDDIN R/O HARMOTI NO. 1 P.O.BAGARI KALIABOR P.S. JAKHALABANDHA DIST. NAGAON PIN-78213 VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 6 ORS REP. BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT OF ASSAM, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, DISPUR, GUWAHATI-781006, ASSAM 2:THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY GOVT. OF ASSAM REVENUE DEPARTMENT DISPUR GUWAHATI-781006 ASSAM 3:THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY Page No.# 2/8 GOVT.OF ASSAM FOREST DEPARTMENT DISPUR GUWAHATI-781006 ASSAM 4:THE DISTRICT COMMISSIONER GOLAGHAT DISTRICT GOLAGHAT ASSAM 5:THE SUB-DIVISIONAL OFFICER BOKAKHAT SUB-DIVISION (LAND ACQUISITION SECTION) BOKAKHAT. 6:THE CIRCLE OFFICER BOKAKHAT REVENUE CIRCLE BOKAKHAT. 7:THE CO-DISTRICT COMMISSIONER BOKAKHAT CO-DISTRICT DIST- GOLAGHAT Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. N K KALITA, MR D DEKA Advocate for the Respondent : GA, ASSAM, SC, REVENUE,SC, FOREST BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N. UNNI KRISHNAN NAIR ORDER Date : 04-09-2025 Heard Mr. N.K. Kalita, learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioners. Also heard A. Bhattacharjee, learned standing counsel, Revenue Department, Assam appearing for the respondent Nos. 1 & 2, Mr. D. Gogoi, learned standing counsel, Forest Department, Assam appearing for the respondent No. 3 and Mr. B.J. Talukdar, learned Sr. counsel Page No.# 3/8 assisted by Mr. P.K. Medhi, learned counsel appearing for the respondent Nos. 4 to 6. 2. The petitioners in the present writ petition, have raised a grievance with regard to non-release of the assessed compensation amount for acquisition of land belonging to the petitioners. The petitioner have further prayed that they being the co-pattadar of the said land, the respondent authorities are required to release a proportionate share of the compensation amount as assessed to the petitioners, in the matter. 3. As projected in the writ petition, the father of the petitioners, namely, Sk. Sahid Hussain and one Sk. Hamid Ali were the joint pattadar and possessors of a plot of land measuring 4B-4K-14L covered by Dag No. 49 of Patta No. 5, of village Haldibari under Mouza Kaziranga under Golaghat District. The father of the petitioners passed on, on 10- 09-1985, living behind the mother of the petitioners and the petitioners as his next of kin. It is projected that the mother had also subsequently passed on. The petitioners being the legal heirs of late Sahid Hussain, being in possession of the land, were paying revenue to the Revenue Department. 4. It is under above circumstances that the respondent authorities had proceeded to acquire the land possessed by the petitioners for the purpose of the 5th addition to Kaziranga National Park. Accordingly, a notice dated 08-03-2023 came to be issued in the name of the deceased father of the petitioners, with regard to acquisition of the land in the possession of the petitioners and assessment of compensation thereof. The compensation for acquisition of the land was so assessed as Rs. 19,30,125/- (Nineteen Lakhs Thirty Thousand One hundred Twenty-five). The petitioners on receipt of the said Page No.# 4/8 notice approached the respondent No. 5, with all requisite documents and had prayed for release to them of their due share of the compensation amount assessed for the land so acquired from them. It is to be noted that the acquisition was made in respect of 2B-4K- 14L out of the land possessed by the petitioners and the co-pattadar. 5. The respondent authorities having not released the compensation, as assessed in the matter to the petitioners, even such release being not made with regard to the extent of the share of the petitioners in the land in question, the petitioners have instituted the present proceeding with the prayers, as noticed, hereinabove. 6. Mr. N.K. Kalita, learned counsel for the petitioners after reiterating the facts noticed, hereinabove, has submitted that the respondent authorities even after assessing due compensation receivable by the petitioners, have not released the same, inasmuch as the co-pattadars of the plot of land in question, had not appeared before the respondent authorities for completion of the requisite formalities. Mr. Kalita submits that the amount as assessed by the respondent authorities for the land, as acquired from the petitioners and the co-pattadar, has not been disputed by the petitioners. However, they are aggrieved by the non-release of compensation amount to the extent of their share in the land so acquired by the respondent authorities. Accordingly, he submits that the respondent authorities be directed to release atleast 50% of the assessed amount to the petitioners, herein, which would be commensurating to the share the petitioners would have on the land that was so acquired by the respondent authorities. 7. Per contra, Mr. B.J. Talukdar, learned Sr. counsel has submitted that the respondent authorities upon completion of the process of acquisition and having prepared the award, Page No.# 5/8 it came to notice that with regard to the land claimed by the petitioners to have been acquired from them, there were names of 02 (two) pattadars, i.e. S. Hamid Ali and Sk. Sahid Hussain and the total quantum of land was denoted as 2B-4K-14L. Mr. Talukdar has further submitted that the other co-pattadar Sk. Hamid Ali, had not appeared before the respondent authorities for completion of the formalities. Accordingly, it is submitted that if the authorities release 50% compensation amount in favour of the petitioners and there is subsequent claim made by the co-pattadar Sk. Hamid Ali and/ or his legal heirs for a larger share in the compensation amount so assessed, the respondent authorities would not be in a position to meet such demand after making payments to the petitioners, herein, and a dispute having arisen with regard to the apportionment of the amount amongst the claimants, said amount was not released by the respondent authorities. Accordingly, he submits that the present writ petition would not mandate an acceptance and petitioners would be required to appear before the competent authority, i.e. the Addl. District Commissioner, Co-district, Bokakhat, for having the matter referred to the ‘Authority’ as envisaged under the provisions of Section 51 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, for apportionment of the compensation amount as assessed. 8. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also perused the materials available on record. 9. The facts noticed hereinabove has not been disputed by the parties to the proceeding. The acquisition of land wherein the predecessor in interest of the petitioner was a co-pattadar has also not been disputed by the parties to the proceeding. Page No.# 6/8 Accordingly, it is an admitted position that 2B-4K-14L land, out of the total land covered by Dag No. 49 of Patta No. 4 of village Haldhibari, Revenue circle Bokakhat in the co- district of Bokakhat, was acquired by the respondent authorities for the purpose of the 5th Addition of Kaziranga National Park. The materials brought on record would reveal that the father of the petitioners, late Sk. Sahid Hussain was a co-pattadar of the said plot of land along with one Sk. Hamid Ali. The petitioners have not disputed the award so made in their case and also not disputed the amount of compensation, which was assessed as Rs. 19,30,125/- (Nineteen Lakhs Thirty Thousand One Hundred Twenty Five). 10. However, the amount in question, was not released to either to the petitioners or to the co-pattadar Sk. Hamid Ali and/ or his legal heirs, inasmuch as, neither Sk. Hamid Ali or his legal heirs had appeared before the respondent authorities for completion of the requisite formalities. It is further contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the whereabouts of Sk. Hamid Ali and his legal heirs are not known to any persons in the locality. 11. In view of the above discussions, it is apparent that the dispute in the present proceeding, pertains to the apportionment of the compensation amount as assessed in the matter by the competent authority. While the right of the petitioner to receive the said compensation amount is not disputed to, what is in dispute is the share that they would be entitled in the said compensation amount so assessed by the respondent authorities. 12. Envisaging a position as arising in the present proceeding, Section 76 of the said Act of 2013 mandates that when the amount of compensation has been settled, if any Page No.# 7/8 dispute arises as to the apportionment of the same or any part thereof or as to the person to whom the same or any part thereof is payable, the Collector may refer the said dispute to the ‘Authority’. The term ‘Authority’, as finding mention in Section 76 of the Act of 2013 is described in the provision of Section 51 of the Act of 2013. The authority is the “Land Acquisition Rehabilitation and Resettlement Authority” and such authority has to be specified by the appropriate Government. In terms of the provision of Section 51(1) of the Act of 2025 as well as the provisions of Rule 45(1) of Assam Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Rules, 2015, the competent authority vide notification dated 27-06-2024, declared that the Courts of District & Sessions Judges of all districts of the State of Assam, shall act as “Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Authority” within their respective jurisdiction to exercise powers and authority conferred upon on it by or under Act of 2013, until further order. Accordingly, for the purpose the provision of Section 51, it is the courts of the learned District & Sessions Judge in the State of Assam that has been now designated as the “Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Authority”. 13. As noticed hereinabove, the dispute in the present proceeding being with regard to the apportionment of the compensation amount, as already assessed, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioners, herein, for recovery of their share in the compensation so assessed, in the matter, has to take recourse to the provisions as set out in the Act of 2013, for such an eventuality. Accordingly, the petitioners are directed to approach the Competent Authority for Land Acquisition (CALA), Bokakhat by submitting an application along with a certified copy of this order, praying for referring the issue, with Page No.# 8/8 regard to apportionment of the awarded amount to the ‘Authority’ as envisaged under Section 51 of the Act of 2013, read with the said notification dated 27-06-2024. The CALA on receipt of such application from the petitioners, shall refer the same to the ‘Authority’ as set out in the provisions of Section 51 of the Act of 2013, read with the said notification dated 27-06-2024, within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of such application from the petitioners. 14. The ‘Authority’ upon being referred with the disputed question shall proceed to adjudicate upon the same and render its decision in the matter expeditiously. The manner, in which, the amount assessed with regard to the acquisition of the land, wherein, the petitioners are co-pattadars, would now be done in terms of the decision that would be rendered in the matter by the ‘Authority’. With the above observations and directions, this writ petition stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant