Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010141352025 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/3716/2025 SRI PRABIN CH TERON S/O- LATE CHANA RAM TERON, R/O- VILL- PAMOHI, P.O AND P.S- GARCHUK, GUWAHATI-35,ASSAM VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER/ SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM, REVENUE AND DISASTER MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT, BLOCK-F, 1ST FLOOR, ASSAM SECRETARIAT (CIVIL), DISPUR, GUWAHATI- 781006. 2:THE DISTRICT COMMISSIONER KAMRUP METRO LICHUBAGAN HENGRABARI GUWAHATI- 781036 IN THE DISTRICT OF KAMRUP(M) ASSAM. 3:THE CIRCLE OFFICER AZARA REVENUE CIRCLE AZARA GUWAHATI- 781017 IN THE DISTRICT OF KAMRUP(M) ASSAM. 4:THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER PWD JALUKBARI AND GUWAHATI WEST TERRITORIAL BUILDING DIVISION JALUKBARI GUWHATI-13 Page No.# 2/3 KAMRUP METRO ASSA Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. C TALUKDAR, MS. P DAS,MR. B K DAS,MR. M C KALITA Advocate for the Respondent : SC, REVENUE, SC, PWD,GA, ASSAM BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR MEDHI ORDER 30.07.2025 Heard Shri B.K. Das, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Shri S.S. Roy, learned State Counsel. The grievance of the petitioner is in connection with an acquisition proceeding of land and the submission of the petitioner is that for widening of a road, the land acquired is much more than what is required. It is the categorical submission that 10 meter of land is not required for such road. This Court while considering the matter on the previous occasions had directed the learned State Counsel to obtain instructions. Shri Roy, the learned State Counsel has submitted that written instructions dated 25.07.2025 have been received. From a copy of the said written instructions which has been placed before this Court, it appears that a Joint Verification was scheduled on 27.06.2025 which was based on an Advocate’s Notice dated 24.04.2025 issued on behalf of the petitioner. In the said verification by the team compromising of officials from PWD (Roads), PWD (Building), and Land Record staff of Azara Revenue Circle, it was found and mutually agreed by all the stakeholders that the earlier assessment pertaining to the land of the petitioner is accurate and is in line of the required Right of Way (ROW). Page No.# 3/3 In matters of acquisition of land, the scope of challenge is absolutely limited and unless the aggrieved party is able to show violation of the statute, such acquisition are not be interfered with which is done in the public interest. In the instant case, the acquisition is for widening of a road and the public interest involved cannot be doubted. At the same time, the aggrieved party should not be deprived of the just and adequate compensation for such acquisition. Shri Das, the learned counsel for the petitioner has expressed apprehension that there would be no correct reflection of the building which is standing on the land in question and would be affected by the acquisition involved. He has also emphatically stated that there is an RCC structured two storied whereas in the assessment, A type structure has been shown. In view of the aforesaid, while this Court is not inclined to interfere with the present acquisition process, it is observed that while carrying out the acquisition of the land required for widening of the road, the due process of law be followed and all steps be taken to arrive at a just and fair compensation. It is needless to say that under the law of acquisition the petitioner who is the aggrieved party would have the right to claim for enhancement in the appropriate forum also. Writ petition accordingly stands disposed of. The written instructions are made part of the records. JUDGE Comparing Assistant