Page No.# 1/9 GAHC010249852023 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : CRP(IO)/75/2024 RAYNA BEGOM CHOUDHURY @ RAYNA BEGUM BARBHUIYA D/O LATE HAJIRA BEGUM BARBHUIYA. RESIDENT OF VILLAGE LAKSHIMINAGAR II, PS LALA, PO LAKSHIMINAGAR, DIST HAILAKANDI, 788164 VERSUS NIZAM UDDIN BARBHUIYA AND 23 ORS. S/O IMRAN ALI BARBHUIYA RESIDENT OF VILLAGE BORBOND II, PS AND DIST HAILAKANDI, ASSAM 788155 2:MD. KHALIL AHMED BARBHUIYA S/O NIZAM UDDIN RESIDENT OF VILLAGE BORBOND II PS AND DIST HAILAKANDI ASSAM 788155 3:MD. SAYAD AHMED BARBHUIYA S/O NIZAM UDDIN RESIDENT OF VILLAGE BORBOND II PS AND DIST HAILAKANDI ASSAM 788155 4:MD. TAHIR AHMED BARBHUIYA S/O NIZAM UDDIN RESIDENT OF VILLAGE BORBOND II PS AND DIST HAILAKANDI ASSAM 788155 5:MD. KABIR AHMED BARBHUIYA Page No.# 2/9 S/O NIZAM UDDIN RESIDENT OF VILLAGE BORBOND II PS AND DIST HAILAKANDI ASSAM 788155 6:MD. BASIR AHMED BARBHUIYA S/O NIZAM UDDIN RESIDENT OF VILLAGE BORBOND II PS AND DIST HAILAKANDI ASSAM 788155 7:MD. NOZIR AHMED BARBHUIYA S/O NIZAM UDDIN RESIDENT OF VILLAGE BORBOND II PS AND DIST HAILAKANDI ASSAM 788155 8:MD. ZAKARIA AHMED BARBHUIYA S/O NIZAM UDDIN RESIDENT OF VILLAGE BORBOND II PS AND DIST HAILAKANDI ASSAM 788155 9:MUSST. REJONA BEGUM BARBHUIYA W/O KHALIL AHMED BARBHUIYA RESIDENT OF VILLAGE BORBOND II PS AND DIST HAILAKANDI ASSAM 788155 10:THE GENERAL MANAGER POWER GRID CORPORATION OF INDIA LIMITED DONGTIEH LOWER NONGRAH LAPALANG SHILLONG 11:THE REGIONAL MANAGER POWER GRID CORPORATION OF INDIA LIMITED DONGTIEH LOWER NONGRAH LAPALANG SHILLONG 12:THE CHIEF MANAGER POWER GRID CORPORATION OF INDIA NER BADARPUR GHAT Page No.# 3/9 13:THE JUNIOR ENGINEER POWER GRID CORPORATION OF INDIA NER BADARPUR GHAT 14:THE STATE OF ASSAM TO BE REPRESENTED BY THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER HAILAKANDI ASSAM 15:THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER HAILAKANDI ASSAM 16:THE ASSISTANT SETTLEMENT OFFICER LALA REVENUE CIRCLE LALA 17:MUST. ASMA KHATUN BARBHUIYA VILLAGE BORBOND II DIST HAILAKANDI PO BORBOND 788164 18:MUSST. NUR JAHAN BEGUM BARBHUIYA D/O LATE IMRAN ALI BARBHUIYA VILLAGE BORBOND II DIST HAILAKANDI PO BORBOND 788164 19:ABDUL MALIK MAZUMDER RESIDENT OF VILLAGE BORBOND PART II PS AND DIST HAILAKANDI ASSAM 20:AZIM UDDIN MAZUMDER @ JAMAL UDDIN MAZUMDER RESIDENT OF VILLAGE BORBOND PART II PS AND DIST HAILAKANDI ASSAM 21:JALAL UDDIN MAZUMDER @ NAZRUL ISLAM MAZUMDER S/O NASIB ALI MAZUMDER RESIDENT OF VILLAGE BORBOND PART II PS AND DIST HAILAKANDI ASSAM Page No.# 4/9 22:HAWATUN NESSA MAZUMDER @ KAWARUN NESSA MAZUMDER W/O MOYNUL HOQUE MAZUMDER RESIDENT OF VILLAGE BORBOND PART II PS AND DIST HAILAKANDI ASSAM 23:JABUN NESSA BARBHUIYA D/O LATE MASKANDER ALI BARBHUIYA RESIDENT OF VILLAGE BORBOND PART II PS AND DIST HAILAKANDI ASSAM 24:NUR UDDIN BARBHUIYA S/O LATE IMRAN ALI BARBHUIYA RESIDENT OF VILLAGE NISCHINTAPUR II PS AND DIST HAILAKANDI ASSA Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. R A CHOUDHURY, Z A LASKAR,MR. R A MAZUMDER Advocate for the Respondent : MR. A M BARBHUIYA(R-1 TO 8,19,20,21,22,23), MS G DUGARR- 10,11,12,13),MR G N SAHEWALLA (R-10,11,12,13),MS K SARMAR-10,11,12,13),MR M SAHEWALLAR-10,11,12,13),MS S R MAZARBHUIYA(R-1 TO 8, 19,20,21,22,23) BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ROBIN PHUKAN ORDER 06.08.2025 Heard Mr. R. A. Choudhury, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. A. M. Barbhuiya, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 to 8 & 19 to 23. Also heard Mr. G. N. Sahewalla, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. M. Sahewalla, learned Standing Counsel, Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd., for the respondent Nos. 10 to 13. 2. In this petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the correctness, or otherwise, of the orders dated 17.08.2023, and 21.09.2023, passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Hailakandi, in Misc. P.G. Case No. 01/2015; by which, the learned Court below Page No.# 5/9 has dismissed the petition No. 264/2007, vide order dated 17.08.2023, and the petition No. 372/2006, vide order dated 21.09.2023. 3. Mr. Choudhury, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the present petitioner is a legal heir of the petitioner No. 4 in Misc. P.G. Case No. 01/2015, which is pending for adjudication in the Court of the learned Additional District Judge, Hailakandi and on the death of her mother, namely, Hajira Begum Barbhuiya, the present petitioner has been impleaded as petitioner No. 4 (a) in the said Misc. P.G. Case No. 01/2015, in place of her later mother. 3.1. The mother of the petitioner, along with others, have instituted one case, under Section 16(4) of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885, read with Section 42 of the Electricity Act, 2003, praying for, amongst others, inclusion of their names as legal heirs of late Irman Ali Barbhuiya in proportionate share of jirat/compensation for stringing/drawing/erecting 400 KV D/C Silchar/Pubo Kanchan Bari Transmission Line over their ancestral property, and the petitioner Nos. 1 to 4 and proforma opposite party Nos. 17 & 18 of the Misc. P.G. Case No. 01/2015, are the daughters of late Irman Ali Barbhuiya and the opposite party No. 1/respondent No. 1, is the son of late Irman Ali Barbhuiya, who was the absolute owner and possessor of a piece of land, measuring 3 Bighas 10 Katas, pertaining to 2nd RS Patta No. 119/121, Dag Nos. 389/390/382/383/384, situated under Mouza-Borbond, in the district of Hailakandi. The name of Late Irman Ali Barbhuiya was recorded as Irphan Ali, instead of Irman Ali Barbhuiyan, who is the one and same person and was the owner of the said land. 3.2. The Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd. had stringed/drawn/erected 400 KV D/C Transmission Line from Silchar to Pubo Kanchan Bari and through the aforesaid landed property of late Imran Ali Barbhuiyan, the transmission was allowed to be constructed by the Deputy/District Commissioner, Hailakandi, and in the Jamabandi copy of the said land, the name of late Irman Ali Page No.# 6/9 Barbhuiya was recorded as Irphan Ali, instead of Irman Ali Barbhuiya, who was the one and same person and was the owner of the said land. 3.3. Mr. Choudhury also submits that the Deputy Commissioner, Hailakandi and the Assistant Settlement Officer, Lala Revenue Circle, Lala, made survey work for assessment of prospective damages of the said schedule land. But unfortunately, the names of the petitioner side was not included in the said survey and in the assessment list of beneficiaries for jirat/compensation, even though they are the legal heirs of late Irman Ali Barbhuiya and instead, the name of the respondent No. 1/opposite party No. 1, his wife and sons and others are enlisted as beneficiaries, for compensation amounting to Rs. 1,32,85,826/- on extraneous consideration. 3.4. Thereafter, the petitioner side had registered their protest, but the Assistant Settlement Officer tactfully showed that there is objection involving Rs. 1,51,065/- as far as the petitioner side is concerned, and the whole assessment amount is shown in the name of the respondent No. 1 and his sons and another (respondent Nos. 1 to 9). 3.5 Mr. Choudhury, further submits that the petitioner side is entitled to their respective proportionate share of the jirat/compensation, being the legal heirs of late Irman Ali Barbhuiya, and to avoid multiplicity of suits/cases, the petitioner side instituted the said Misc. P.G. Case No. 01/2015, praying amongst others, for proportionate compensation, and filed a petition before the learned Additional District Judge, Hailakandi, but, the same was rejected by the learned Additional District Judge, Hailakandi, without considering the same on merit. 3.6. Mr. Choudhury, further submits that the learned Additional District Judge, Hailakandi had failed to consider that the present petitioner is the legal heir of late Irman Ali Barbhuiya and is entitled to proportionate share/jirat/compensation, and to substantiate that she is the legal heir of Late Irman Ali Barbhuiya, Mr. Choudhury has referred to the cross-examination of Page No.# 7/9 DW-1 at page Nos. 43, 44 and to the Jamabandi copy at page No. 85, and also Annexure-4 at page Nos. 56 & 82 of this petition. 3.7. Under the above facts and circumstances, Mr. Choudhury has contended to set aside the impugned orders, dated 17.08.2023 and 21.09.2023, passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Hailakandi, and to remand the matter to the learned Additional District Judge, Hailakandi to decide the proportionate share of the compensation, which the petitioner herein is entitled to. 4. Per contra, Mr. A. M. Barbhuiya, learned counsel for the respondents, opposed the petition. He submits that the impugned order, so passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Hailakandi, suffers from no infirmity or illegality, requiring any interference of this Court. Mr. Barbhuiya also submits that the land, upon which, determination/demarcation and inspection regarding the situs of the scheduled land, damages were claimed, had not properly been described, and under such circumstances, Mr. Barbhuiya submits that the petition may be dismissed. 5. Having heard the submissions made by the learned counsels for both the parties, I have carefully gone through the petition and the documents placed on record and also perused the impugned orders dated 17.08.2023 and 21.09.2023, and also perused the documents and the evidences placed on record by Mr. Choudhury, learned counsel for the petitioner. 6. It appears that in the petition under Section 16(4) of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 read with Section 42 of the Electricity Act, 2003 the schedule of the suit land, where demarcation/inspection/ascertainment regarding situs of the scheduled land damage, damages as sought for, have duly been described, and as such, there appears to be no substance in the submission of Mr. Barbhuiya, the learned counsel for the respondent. 7. Further, the documents produced by Mr. Choudhury, the learned Page No.# 8/9 counsel for the petitioner show that the present petitioner is the person interested', as defined under Section 10(d) of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885, which reads as under:- "In the exercise of the powers conferred by this section, the telegraph authority shall do as little damage as possible, and, when it has exercised those powers in respect of any property other than that referred to in clause (c), shall pay full compensation to all persons interested for any damage sustained by them by reason of the exercise of those powers." 8. However, in the instant case, in spite of being the legal heirs of late Irman Ali Barbhuiya, the learned Additional District Judge, Hailakandi, on technical ground, had dismissed the petition NoS. 264/2007, and 372/2006, for demarcation of the suit land, instead of ascertaining as to whether the petitioner is 'person interested' or not, and if so, the extent of her share and also entitlement of compensation and the quantum of the same. 9. On such count, the impugned orders dated 17.08.2023 and 21.09.2023, so passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Hailakandi, appear to be illegal and they fail to withstand the legal scrutiny, and accordingly, the same stands set aside and quashed 10. The matter stands relegated to the Court of the learned Additional District Judge, Hailakandi, with a direction to pass a fresh and reasoned orders on the petition Nos. 264/2007 and 372/2006, after affording an opportunity of being heard to both the parties. 11. And since the matter is of the year 2015, the learned Additional District Judge, Hailakandi, is requested to make an endeavour to dispose of both the petitions as soon as practicable, preferably within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. The petitioner shall obtain a certified copy of this order and shall place the same before the Court Page No.# 9/9 of learned Additional District Judge, Hailakandi. 12. In terms of the above, this Civil Revision Petition stands disposed of. The Registry shall send down the record of the learned Court below by a special messenger. JUDGE Comparing Assistant