Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010142662025 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/3831/2025 KUCHUMBAR BHUYAN S/O- LATE TAPESWAR BHUYAN. R/O- VILL.- BOGACHALA. P.O.- TENGARA, P.S.- SIPAJHAR, DIST.- DARRANG, ASSAM, PIN-784148. VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ORS REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM, (DMLR) DISASTER MANAGEMENT AND LAND REVENUE DEPARTMENT, DISPUR, GHY-6, KAMRUP(M), ASSAM. 2:THE DEPUTY SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM DMLR DEPARTMENT DISPUR GHY-06 KAMRUP(M) ASSAM. 3:THE DISTRICT COMMISSIONER DARRANG MONGALDOI DARRANG ASSAM PIN-784125. 4:THE UNDER SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM. WATER RESOURCES DEPARTMENT CHANDMARI GHY-03 KAMRUP(M) ASSAM. Page No.# 2/3 5:THE CHIEF ENGINEER WATER RESOURCES DEPARTMENT CHANDMARI GHY-03 KAMRUP(M) ASSAM. 6:THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER MANGALDOI DARRANG DARRANG ASSAM PIN-784125. 7:THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM FINANCE DEPARTMENT DISPUR GUWAHATI-06 KAMRUP(M) ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. R C DAS, MR. A KASHYAP,A JUBARIA,MR. H RAHMAN,MR S HUSSAIN Advocate for the Respondent : GA, ASSAM, SC, WATER RESOURCE,SC, REVENUE BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR MEDHI ORDER 14-07-2025 Heard Shri R. C. Das, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Shri N. Das, learned State Counsel as well as Ms. R. M. Deka, learned Standing Counsel, Water Resources Department. By means of this petition, the petitioner has made a claim for compensation on the allegation that land has been acquired in the year 2001. Shri Das, the learned counsel has submitted that the land in question was Page No.# 3/3 purchased by his father vide a Sale Deed dated 20.04.1987, a copy of which has been enclosed as Annexure 2. He has also drawn the attention of this Court to the Gazette Notification dated 29.05.2014 in which the name of one Nagen Ch. Keot has been reflected against the plot of land in question. He has also relied upon 2 orders passed by this Court in WP(C)/4942/2021. This Court has however been intrigued that a claim for compensation of land allegedly acquired has been made after 25 years. Apart from the aspect of laches which has not been explained at all, this Court has noted that the so-called Sale Deed of 1987 is an unregistered Sale Deed wherein the name of the seller appears to be Nagen Deka. Even if benefit of doubt is given to the petitioner that Nagen Deka and Nagen Ch. Keot is the same person, there is not even a semblance of any right which can be demonstrated in this petition regarding the ownership of the petitioner on the plot of land in question. Though per se the Limitation Act, 1963 may not have a strict application in a writ proceeding, the powers and jurisdictions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India being equitable in nature, due diligence and bona fide of a party approaching this Court is of paramount importance. In view of the aforesaid discussion, this Court is of the opinion that this petition does not warrant any merit and accordingly, the same is dismissed. JUDGE Comparing Assistant