Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2025 DAILYLAW 22115 (GAU)

LUKMAN UDDIN v. THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 6 ORS.

WP(C)/7023/2024 · 2025-01-19

Manish Choudhury

Writ Petition (Civil)body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010272822024 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/7023/2024 LUKMAN UDDIN SON OF LATE BALU MIA, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE- ALONGJURI, P.O.- SILCHAR ROAD, DISTRICT- KARIMGANJ, ASSAM. VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 6 ORS. REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM, REVENUE (SETTLEMENT) DEPARTMENT, DISPUR, GUWAHATI-6. 2:THE MINISTRY OF ROAD TRANSPORT AND HIGHWAYS TRANSPORT BHAWAN 1 PARLIAMENT STREET NEW DELHI-1. 3:THE DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER (P) NATIONAL HIGHWAYS AND INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD. PMU PESKAR LANE SONAI ROAD SILCHAR. 4:THE DISTRICT COMMISSIONER KARIMGANJ ASSAM. 5:THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF AGRICULTURE Page No.# 2/3 KARIMGANJ. 6:THE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COMMISSIONER (REVENUE AND LAND SETTLEMENT BRANCH) KARIMGANJ ASSAM. 7:THE CIRCLE OFFICER KARIMGANJ REVENUE CIRCLE DISTRICT- KARIMGANJ ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. S K TALUKDAR, L P BORAH,MR. A B T HAQUE,MR. J M A CHOUDHURY Advocate for the Respondent : SC, REVENUE, SC, NHIDC,SC, REVENUE,GA, ASSAM BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MANISH CHOUDHURY ORDER Date : 20-01-2025 Heard Mr. J.M.A. Choudhury, learned counsel for the petitioner; Ms. P. R. Mahanta, learned Standing Counsel, Revenue Department for the respondent no. 1, Mrs. V.L. Singh, learned Standing Counsel, NHIDCL for the respondent nos. 2 & 3; and Ms. M. Barman, learned Junior Government Advocate, Assam for the respondent nos. 4, 6 & 7. Mr. Choudhury, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that for redressal of his grievance regarding the enhancement of the compensation the petitioner would approach the arbitrator appointed under Section 3G [5] of the National Highways Act, 1956. Learned counsel for the respondents have submitted that since the remedy under Section 3G [5] of the National Highways Act, 1956 is a statutory remedy, they have no objection to the above submission. In view of the submission that the petitioner would approach the arbitrator appointed under Section 3G [5] of the National Highways Act, 1956, this writ petition, at this stage, Page No.# 3/3 stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant