Page No.# 1/6 GAHC010160872024 2025:GAU-AS:9285 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : CRP/131/2024 SHRI AMIT KUMAR BORAH S/O LATE UMESH CHANDRA BORAH, R/O - CHEROTIA GAON, NABAJYOTI PATH, BOROGAON, P.S.- JORHAT, JORHAT EAST, ASSAM- 785001 VERSUS SRI GAKUL BORA AND 7 ORS S/O LATE PANIRAM BORA, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE- CHENGALI GAON, MOUZA- CHARIGAON, P.S.- JORHAT, DIST.- JORHAT, ASSAM, PIN- 785010. 2:SHRI SURAJIT BORA S/O PANIRAM BORA RESIDENT OF VILLAGE- CHENGALI GAON MOUZA- CHARIGAON P.S.- JORHAT DIST.- JORHAT ASSAM PIN- 785010. 3:SMT. PUNADA BORA W/O LATE PANIRAM BORA RESIDENT OF VILLAGE- CHENGALI GAON MOUZA- CHARIGAON P.S.- JORHAT DIST.- JORHAT ASSAM PIN- 785010. 4:SRI CHENIRAM BORA S/O LATE FODAI BORA RESIDENT OF VILLAGE- CHENGALI GAON MOUZA- CHARIGAON Page No.# 2/6 P.S.- JORHAT DIST.- JORHAT ASSAM PIN- 785010. 5:NIRU BORA W/O LATE BANSHIDAR BORA (BOGAI) RESIDENT OF VILLAGE- CHENGALI GAON MOUZA- CHARIGAON P.S.- JORHAT DIST.- JORHAT ASSAM PIN- 785010. 6:DILIP BORA S/O LATE MITHARAM BORA 7:SMT. RANJUMONI BORA W/O PROBIN BORA RESIDENT OF VILLAGE- CHENGALI GAON MOUZA- CHARIGAON P.S.- JORHAT DIST.- JORHAT ASSAM PIN- 785010. 8:THE ADDITIONAL DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (LAND ACQUISITION) JORHAT ASSAM. JORHAT ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR B D DAS, MR J LOTHA,MR. H R DAS,MR H K SARMA Advocate for the Respondent : , Page No.# 3/6 BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ROBIN PHUKAN ORDER Date : 16.07.2025 Heard Mr. B.D. Das, learned Senior Counsel, assisted by Mr. H.R. Das, learned counsel for the petitioner. None appears for the respondents, though service deemed to have been completed upon them, in view of the order dated 24.03.2025 of this Court. 2. In this petition, under Section 115 of the CPC, read with Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the correctness or otherwise of the judgment and order dated 28.03.2024, passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Jorhat, in L.A. (Ref.) Case No. 30/2022, under Section 3H(4) of the National Highways Act, 1956. 3. Mr. Das, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is the owner of a plot of land measuring 14 lechas, covered by Dag No. 107, Patta No. 112 of village Chengeli, under Charigaon Mouza in the Jorhat district by virtue of purchase vide sale deed, dated 05.03.2001 (Annexure-1 of the petition), and since then, he is under possession of the same and that the petitioner had purchased the said plot of land from one Paniram Bora. Mr. Das also submits that that in the said sale deed, the dag number has been wrongly mentioned as 111 instead of 107, but the boundary of the land is same with that of the boundary of Dag No. 107. Mr. Das also submits that thereafter, in the year 2016, for construction of four-lane highway, out of the 14 lechas of land so purchased by the petitioner, 5.50 lechas of land was acquired by the Government and a notice dated 02.03.2016, was issued to him by the Circle Officer along with one Cheniram Bora and co-pattadars of Dag No. 107, Patta Page No.# 4/6 No. 112 of village Chengeli, under Charigaon Mouza, and the said land was measured by the Circle Officer and the petitioner was present there and he came to know that 5.50 lechas of land had been acquired. 3.1. Mr. Das, referring to the report of the Lat Mondal (Annexure-10, at page No. 48 of the petition) submits that the said report dated 23.02.2016, indicates that after field verification, he had found 5.50 lechas of the land under Dag No. 107, in possession of the present petitioner. Mr. Das also submits that thereafter, in respect of acquisition of the aforementioned land, the petitioner had received several notices, being Annexure-3, 4, 5 and 7, which reflects the name of the petitioner at Sl. No. 4 of the aforesaid notices issued by the Additional Deputy Commissioner (L.A.), Jorhat, and thereafter, in connection with apportionment of the compensation for the land acquired for construction of the four-lane Highway, dispute arose between the parties and then the Additional Deputy Commissioner (L.A.), Jorhat, vide letter dated 10.10.2022 (Annexure-8 of the petition) made a reference under Section 3H(4) of the National Highways Act for apportionment of Rs. 36,38,303/-, being the compensation for acquiring the land. Mr. Das further submits that upon the said letter dated 10.10.2022, the learned District Judge, Jorhat registered L.A. (Ref.) Case No. 30/2022, and vide order dated 25.11.2022, had issued notice to nine interested persons, namely, Mitharam, Soliram, Bogai, Jaduram, Gakul Bora, Anu Bora, Ranjumoni, Rupjyoti Bora and Dipjyoti, and thereafter, hearing the parties, the learned Additional District Judge, Jorhat, vide impugned judgment and order dated 28.03.2024, had disposed of the said reference case clarifying the name of the persons interested, who are entitled to the compensation amount of Rs. 36,38,303/-. 3.2. Referring to the aforementioned annexure, Mr. Das submits that the petitioner is the person interested over the land in question. But, while Page No.# 5/6 reference was made vide letter dated 10.10.2022, the Additional Deputy Commissioner (L.A.), Jorhat had marked the said letter to as many as seventeen persons concerned under the dispute, for information and necessary action. But in the schedule of the disputed land and the name of the parties, the learned Addl. Deputy Commissioner, Jorhat had mentioned the name of only nine interested persons, namely, Mitharam, Soliram, Bogai, Jaduram, Gakul Bora, Anu Bora, Ranjumoni, Rupjyoti Bora and Dipjyoti. And no notice was issued to the present petitioner, though as per report of the Lat Mondal i.e. Annexure-10, the petitioner is the owner of a plot of land measuring 5.50 lechas. And as such, Mr. Das submits, the impugned judgment and order is arbitrary and illegal for being passed behind the back of the petitioner, and without giving him an opportunity of being heard and accordingly, the right of the petitioner has been violated. Under such circumstances, Mr. Das submits that the impugned judgment and order may be set aside and quashed, and the matter may be remanded to the Court of learned Additional District Judge, Jorhat to decide the matter afresh after issuing notice to all the persons interested, in view of Annexure-8. 4. Having heard the submissions of Mr. Das, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, I have carefully gone through the petition and the documents placed on record, and also perused the impugned judgment and order dated 28.03.2024. 5. It appears from Annexure-1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8 and 10 that the petitioner is a person interested as defined. But, the learned District Judge, Jorhat, after receiving the reference (Annexure-8), had issued notice to only nine persons, namely, Mitharam, Soliram, Bogai, Jaduram, Gakul Bora, Anu Bora, Ranjumoni, Rupjyoti Bora and Dipjyoti, whose names were shown in the letter dated Page No.# 6/6 10.10.2022, and curiously enough, the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Jorhat marked a copy to as many as seventeen concerned parties, who are under dispute, for information and necessary action, and in the said letter, the name of the petitioner finds mentioned at Sl. No. 4. It is also not in dispute that no notice was issued to the petitioner and the impugned judgment and order dated 28.03.2024, was passed behind the back of the petitioner, without giving an opportunity of being heard. And as such, the same is arbitrary and illegal for being passed without affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner. 6. Accordingly, the impugned judgment and order stands set aside and quashed. The matter stands remanded to the Court of learned Additional District Judge, Jorhat with a direction to issue notice to all the persons interested and who are under dispute, as mentioned in the reference letter dated 10.10.2022, and thereafter, to hear all the parties and to pass a fresh order. 7. As the matter is pending since long, the learned Additional District Judge, Jorhat is requested to expedite and complete the trial as soon as practicable, preferably within a period of six months from today. 8. In terms of above, this revision petition stands disposed of. 9. Registry shall send back the TCR forthwith. JUDGE Comparing Assistant