Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010142032025 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/4130/2025 ABDUL BASITH LASKAR S/O- LATE BASIR UDDIN LASKAR, VILL- NITAINAGAR PART II, P.O- NITAINAGAR, P.S AND DIST- HAILAKANDI, PIN-788155, ASSAM VERSUS THE UNION OF INDIA AND ORS REP BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVT OF INDIA MINISTRY OF ROAD TRANSPORT AND HIGHWAYS TRANSPORT BHAWAN 1, PARLIAMENT STREET NEW DELHI-01 2:THE STATE OF ASSAM REP BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT OF ASSAM REVENUE (SETTLEMENT) DEPTT DISPUR GHY -06 3:THE DEPUTY GENERAL MANGER NHIDCL THE NATIONAL HIGHWAYS AND INFRSTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD (NHIDCL) PMU PESKAR LANE SONAI ROAD KANANKPUR PART -I CACHAR SILCHAR 4:THE DISTRICT COMMISSIONER HAILAKANDI PIN-788151 5:THE LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER Page No.# 2/3 CUM ADDL. DISTRICT COMMISSIONER HAILAKANDI PIN-788151 6:THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER PWD BUILDING DIVISION CACHAR SILCHA Advocate for the Petitioner : I HASHMI, MR. A Y CHOUDHURY,MR. T A CHOUDHURY,J NABI Advocate for the Respondent : DY.S.G.I., SC, PWD,GA, ASSAM,SC. REVENUE,SC, NHIDC BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR MEDHI ORDER 28-07-2025 Heard Shri A. Y. Choudhury, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Shri N. Goswami, learned State Counsel; Ms. R. Bora, learned Standing Counsel, NHIDCL; Ms. S. Sarma, learned Standing Counsel, PWD and Ms. G. Hazarika, learned Standing Counsel, Revenue Department. Considering the dispute involved and as agreed to by the learned counsel for the parties, this writ petition is taken up for disposal at the motion stage. It is the case of the petitioner that land measuring 3 kathas has been acquired by the respondents for construction of NH 37 under the Bharatmala Project in the district of Hailakandi as a consequence thereof compensation has been paid which according to the petitioner is inadequate. The petitioner has accordingly submitted a representation to the Deputy Commissioner on 13.02.2025 which has not been taken up for consideration. Shri Choudhury, the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that a direction be given to refer the matter for arbitration by the competent authority. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents have submitted Page No.# 3/3 that while the competent authority is the CALA and the said jurisdiction has been vested on the Addl. Deputy Commissioner, there is nothing on record that any application has been submitted before the CALA. After considering the facts and circumstances, this Court is of the opinion that instead of keeping this writ petition pending, the same is to be disposed of by giving liberty to the petitioner to file an appropriate application before the CALA within a period of a month from today. On submission of such an application, the said authority is directed to consider the same in accordance with law and bring it to a logical conclusion. JUDGE Comparing Assistant