Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010000532024 2025:GAU-AS:16443 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/31/2024 DWIPEN NATH S/O- LATE BALI CHARAN PATHAK, VILLAGE- BARBILA, P.S.- MANIKPUR, DIST.- BONGAIGAON, ASSAM. VERSUS THE UNION OF INDIA AND 7 ORS REPRESENTED BY THE MINISTRY OF TRANSPORT AND COMMUNICATION, GOVT. OF INDIA, NEW DELHI. 2:THE NATIONAL HIGHWAY AUTHORITY OF INDIA NEW DELHI-110075. 3:THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM REVENUE AND DISASTER MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT DISPUR GUWAHATI-6. 4:THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM DISPUR GUWAHATI-6. 5:THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BONGAIGAON ASSAM. 6:THE CIRCLE OFFICER MANIKPUR REVENUE CIRCLE P.O. AND P.S.- MANIKPUR DIST.- BONGAIGAON ASSAM. 7:THE PROJECT DIRECTOR OF BARPETA AND BONGAIGAON Page No.# 2/3 AT BONGAIGAON ASSAM. 8:THE CHIEF ENGINEER PWD (ROADS) ASSAM CHANDMARI GUWAHATI-03 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. M U MAHMUD, MR. S. SUR,MR S ISLAM,MR S H MAHMUD Advocate for the Respondent : DY.S.G.I., MRS. R DEVI,GA, ASSAM,SC, NHAI,SC, REVENUE BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH MAZUMDAR ORDER 01.12.2025 Heard Mr M U Mahmud, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Also heard Ms R Devi, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent No. 1; Mr C Baruah, learned counsel appearing for the respondent Nos. 2 and 7; and Ms N Bordoloi, learned Standing Counsel, Revenue Department, appearing on behalf of the respondent No. 3. 2. The prayer in this writ petition was regarding alleged non-payment of adequate compensation to the petitioner for acquiring/ requisitioning his land measuring 10 lechas covered by Dag No. 30, Lat No. 13, situated at Village-Garoleti, in the district of Bongaigaon. It was alleged by the petitioner that although his land has been acquired/requisitioned, he was not paid the due compensation. 3. The respondent No. 5 has filed an affidavit-in-opposition, wherein it has been stated that the petitioner was granted compensation amounting to Rs. 20,164/-, for structure over the Government khas land under Dag No. 73, which was in possession of the petitioner. 4. The petitioner has filed an affidavit-in-reply, wherein, it has been stated that the money was not received by the petitioner and the signature shown on the receipt also Page No.# 3/3 does not belong to the petitioner. 5. Mr M U Mahmud, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that since the Government has asserted that the amount for acquisition of the land has been disbursed and apparently, it has not been received by the petitioner, the petitioner would like to agitate the impersonation/fraud committed by the person who received the compensation for the land. 6. The learned counsels for the respondents have submitted that the petitioner would be, in any case, with all liberty in law, to approach the appropriate forum, if any fraud or forgery had taken place. 7. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the records. 8. Since the compensation amount as per the records of the respondents has been paid and the dispute now arises, as to whether it was paid to the correct person or to some impersonator or fraud, this writ petition closed at this stage, without adjudicating on that factor. The petitioner shall be at liberty to approach the appropriate authorities, including the Police authorities of the concerned district with his allegations of impersonation and fraud, and in case, such an approach is made to the concerned authorities, it is expected that the authorities would act with due diligence, as required in law to investigate the allegations. The petitioner would be at liberty to approach the Police authorities and/or the district authorities for raising the issue and the authorities on receipt of the application, shall act in accordance with law. JUDGE Comparing Assistant