Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010151772025 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/3959/2025 DURDURIA BHUMI ADHIGRIHITA KRISHAK SAMITTEE AND 2 ORS VILL.- BASACHUBA, P.O. DHEKIPARA, DIST. DARRANG, ASSAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT AND SECRETARY. 2: RAJEN NATH S/O- LATE TANKESWAR NATH PRESIDENT DURDURIA BHUMI ADHIGRITA KRISHAK SAMITTEE VILL.- BASACHUBA P.O. DHEKIPARA DIST. DARRANG ASSAM 3: BASANTA DEKA S/O- LATE KESHAB DEKA SECRETARY DURDURIA BHUMI ADHIGRITA KRISHAK SAMITTEE VILL.- BASACHUBA P.O. DHEKIPARA DIST. DARRANG ASSA VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 4 ORS THROUGH THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, DISPUR, GUWAHATI-781006. 2:THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM WATER RESOURCE DEPARTMENT (E AND D) DISPUR GUWAHATI-781006. Page No.# 2/3 3:THE DISTRICT COMMISSIONER DARRANG MANGALDOI P.O. AND P.S. MANGALDOI DIST. DARRANG ASSAM 4:THE CHIEF ENGINEER WATER RESOURCE DEPARTMENT CHANDMARI GUWAHATI-781003. 5:THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER WATER RESOURCE DEPARTMENT (E AND D) MANGALDOI DIST. DARRANG ASSA Advocate for the Petitioner : MR I HASSAN, Advocate for the Respondent : GA, ASSAM, SC, REVENUE,SC, WATER RESOURCE BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR MEDHI ORDER 18.07.2025 Heard Shri I Hassan, learned counsel for the petitioners, who has made a claim for payment of compensation in respect of a land acquisition case. Shri N Das, learned State Counsel, Assam and Ms. RM Deka, learned Standing Counsel, Water Resources Department, Assam have, however informed that the LA case is of the year 1995-96 and there is no explanation with regarding to the delay and also regarding the details of the petitioners. Shri Hassan, learned counsel for the petitioners has, however replied that in response to the RTI application regarding the status of the aforesaid LA case, there are certain information dated 01.02.2025. Page No.# 3/3 This Court, on a proper scrutiny of the documents, has, however noticed that the communication dated 01.02.2025 is issued by the District Commissioner whereby, the two enclosures have been given. It also transpires that the land acquisition case is of the year 1995-96 which was, in fact numbered as LA Case No. 1/1995-96. Entertaining a writ petition for payment of compensation for land acquisition after 30 years will not be in accordance with law. Though the Limitation Act, per se, may not have an application in a writ petition, the aspect of laches will definitely come in as the jurisdiction exercised under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is undoubtedly a jurisdiction of equity. At this stage, the learned counsel for the petitioners prays for withdrawal of the writ petition. Considering the above, the writ petition is closed on withdrawal. JUDGE Comparing Assistant