Page No.# 1/7 GAHC010151272022 2025:GAU-AS:12758 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/5102/2022 ABDUL OHAB S/O LT. HESAB UDDIN AHMED, R/O KOREYA PT-I, P.O.- KOREYA, P.S.- JOGIGHOPA, DIST.- BONGAIGAON, ASSAM, PIN- 783388. VERSUS THE UNION OF INDIA AND 4 ORS. REP. BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF INDIA, ROOM NO. 34/A, A WING SHASTRI BHAWAN, NEW DELHI- 110001. 2:THE STATE OF ASSAM REP. BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM REVENUE AND DISASTER MANAGEMENT DEPTT. DISPUR GHY- 06. 3:THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BONGAIGAON ASSAM PIN- 783380. 4:THE ADDL. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BONGAIGAON ASSAM PIN- 783380. 5:THE CIRCLE OFFICER BOITAMARI REVENUE CIRCLE BOITAMARI DIST.- BONGAIGAON ASSAM Page No.# 2/7 PIN- 783380 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. M U MONDAL, MR. A WAHAB,MR A ALIM SK,MD. I H KHAN,MR K ISLAM Advocate for the Respondent : ASSTT.S.G.I., SC, REVENUE,GA, ASSAM B E F O R E HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KARDAK ETE Date of Hearing & judgment : 17 .09.2025 JUDGMENT & ORDER (Oral) Heard Mr. A. Wahab, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Ms. N. Bordoloi, learned Standing Counsel, Revenue for the respondent No. 2 and Mr. H. Sarma, learned Additional Senior Government Advocate for the respondent Nos. 3, 4 & 5. None appears for the respondent No. 1 despite service of notice. 2. By filing this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for a direction to the respondent authorities to assess the Zirat/structures and to pay adequate compensation over the land measuring 6 Bigha 4 Katha 14 Lessa covered by Dag No. 171 and 202 at Village-Batipara (Joghigopa), Boitamari Revenue Circle, District-Bongaigaon, Assam. 3. The case of the petitioner in a nutshell is that a land measuring 6 Bigha 4 Katha 14 Lessa was acquired for expansion of proposed Right of Way (ROW) for construction of external Truck connectivity from MMLP Joghigopa to IWA Port and from IWA Port to NH-17 by the Deputy Commissioner, Bongaigaon, Assam. The said plot of land belongs the Page No.# 3/7 petitioner, which is recorded in the name of his father being Dag No. 171 and 202 at Village-Batipara (Joghigopa), Boitamari Revenue Circle, Bongaigaon. The compensation for the said land and Zirat and other structures was assessed and accordingly, the compensation for land was paid and accepted by the petitioner. 4. It is the contention of the petitioner that the authority has assessed the compensation for Zirat in favour of the petitioner for Rs. 57,448/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand Four Hundred Forty Eight) only in respect of the brick boundary wall without making assessment of the other properties, for which the compensation would be Rs. 24,44,000/- (Rupees Twenty Four Lakhs Forty Four Thousand) Only. Being aggrieved of not assessing the entire properties for payment of compensation, the petitioner approached the respondent authorities by way of representations dated 12.07.2021, particularly, the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Bongaigaon and the Deputy Commissioner, Bongaigaon, for reassessment of the Zirat/structures and for providing adequate compensation in respect of the said Zirat/structures. The petitioner has also served a Legal Notice to the respondent authorities for payment of adequate compensation in respect of the Zirat/structures. However, the respondent authorities have failed to consider the case of the petitioner. 5. Mr. Wahab, learned counsel for the petitioner, while referring to the documents annexed to the writ petition submits that the petitioner is entitled to an amount of Rs. 24,44,000/- (Rupees Twenty Four Lakhs Forty Four Thousand) as compensation for Zirat and other properties, which the respondent authorities have failed to assess. The assessment was only of the brick boundary wall ignoring the other structures. Therefore, he Page No.# 4/7 submits that the respondent authorities may be directed to reassess the Zirat/structures for adequate compensation. 6. Mr. Sarma, learned Additional Senior Government Advocate for the respondent Nos. 3, 4 & 5, while referring to the affidavit-in-opposition filed on behalf of the respondent No. 3, submits that the compensation for Zirat and structures have been assessed as per the Government Rules as provided by the Department of Agriculture, Forest Department and PWD (B) and accordingly, an amount of Rs. 57,448/- (Rupees Fifty Seven Thousand Four Hundred Forty Eight) has been assessed in favour of the petitioner. He submits that compensation for the Zirat and other structures has been rightly fixed at Rs. 57,448/- (Rupees Fifty Seven Thousand Four Hundred Forty Eight) as there was only a brick boundary wall over the plot of land possessed by the petitioner. Therefore, the petitioner is not entitled for Zirat/structure compensation except an amount of Rs. 57,448/- (Rupees Fifty Seven Thousand Four Hundred Forty Eight). He submits that apart from the above, the petitioner has failed to avail the remedy as provided under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (in short, the LARR Act, 2013). 7. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsels for the parties and have perused the materials available on record. 8. Admittedly, the land of the petitioner recorded in the name of his father as Dag No. 171 and 202 at Village-Batipara (Joghigopa), Boitamari Revenue Circle, District-Bongaigaon measuring 6 Bigha 4 Katha 14 Lessa was acquired for expansion of proposed Right of Way (ROW) for construction of external Truck connectivity from MMLP Joghigopa to IWA Page No.# 5/7 Port and from IWA Port to NH-17 by the Deputy Commissioner, Bongaigaon, Assam. It is also admitted position that the petitioner has accepted the compensation for the land. The only contention of the petitioner is with regard to the compensation assessed by the respondent authorities for Zirat/structures over the land which has been assessed for an amount of Rs. 57,448/- (Rupees Fifty Seven Thousand Four Hundred Forty Eight). 9. It is stated at the Bar that the compensation which has been assessed is under the provision of the LARR Act, 2013. As per Section 64 of the LARR Act, 2013, any person interested who has not accepted the award may, by written application to the Collector, require that the matter be referred by the Collector for the determination of the Authority, whether his objection be to the measurement of the land, the amount of the compensation, the person to whom it is payable. Such an application, is required to be made by a person interested within a period of 6 (six) weeks, if the person making it was present or represented before the collector at the time when he made his award and in other cases, within 6 (six) weeks of the receipt of the notice from the Collector. 10. It is fairly submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that no application has been preferred by the petitioner for reference of the matter to the authority. As the land has been acquired and the compensation thereof, has been assessed under the LARR Act, 2013, the petitioner had a remedy under Section 64 as he has not accepted the award in respect of the Zirat/Structure. However, the petitioner has failed to avail such remedy and it would be difficult at this distant point of time to allow the petitioner to avail the remedy as the provision mandates a Page No.# 6/7 particular timeline. 11. On careful consideration, I find that the petitioner has not been able to show that there are other structures which have not been assessed by the respondent authorities for compensation, except by annexing certain photographs which cannot be said to be a proof of such claim of properties which has not been assessed. This Court would not have a jurisdiction to decide as to whether the photographs annexed in the writ petition is actually an evidence/proof of structures which is stated to have not been assessed by the respondent authorities. 12. The assessment having been made on 10.02.2021 for the compensation for Zirat/structure of Rs. 57,448/- (Rupees Fifty Seven Thousand Four Hundred Forty Eight) and the petitioner having not accepted the said compensation, the petitioner had ample opportunity to avail the remedy, which the petitioner has admittedly missed at the appropriate time. Thus, apart from not being able to substantiate the structures which is alleged to have not been assessed, the petitioner having not availed the remedy at the appropriate time as mandated under the provisions, as noted hereinabove, it would be difficult for this Court to grant any relief by directing the respondent authorities for reassessment, which has been done way back in 2021. 13. In view of the what has been discussed hereinabove, I am of the considered view that no relief can be granted to the petitioner as the petitioner has not availed the appropriate remedy at the appropriate time and no material is placed except some photographs, to substantiate the claim of the petitioner regarding the Zirat/Structures not having been assessed. Page No.# 7/7 14. Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed being devoid of merit. No order as to cost(s). JUDGE Comparing Assistant