Page No.# 1/5 GAHC010014152017 2025:GAU-AS:2907 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/1165/2017 KUMUD CH. LAHKAR and 6 ORS. S/O LT. ABHI RAM LAHKAR R/O RANGIA TOWN, WARD NO. 5, P.O. and P.S. RANGIA DIST. KAMRUP - 781354, ASSAM. 2: SHRI TILAK LAHKAR S/O LT. ABHI RAM LAHKAR R/O H. NO. 10 PUB SARANIA HILL SIDE P.O. and P.S. CHANDMARI GUWAHATI -3 DIST. KAMRUP M ASSAM. 3: SHRI MAHESWAR LAHKAR S/O LT. ABHI RAM LAHKAR AR/O RANGIA TOWN WARD NO. 4 P.O. and P.S. RANGIA DIST. KAMRUP ASSAM PIN - 781354 4: SHRI KRISHNA LAHKAR S/O LT. ABHI RAM LAHKAR R/O RANGIA TOWN WARD NO. 4 P.O. and P.S. RANGIA DIST. KAMRUP - 781354 ASSAM 5: SHRI MANJUL CH. LAHKAR S/O LT. JITEN CH. LAHKAR R/O RANGIA TOWN WARD NO. 4 P.O. and P.S. RANGIA DIST. KAMRUP 781354 ASSAM. 6: SHRI MRINAL CH. LAHKAR S/O LT. JITEN CH. LAHKAR R/O RANGIA TOWN Page No.# 2/5 WARD NO. 4 P.O. and P.S. RANGIA DIST. KAMRUP- 781354 ASSAM 7: SHRI PRANAB JYOTI LAHKAR S/O LT. MANORANJAN LAHKAR R/O RANGIA TOWN WARD NO. 4 P.O. and P.S. RANGIA DIST. KAMRUP- 781354 ASSA VERSUS THE UNION OF INDIA and 5 ORS. REP. BY THE SECRETARY MINISTRY OF RAILWAYS, NEW DELHI 2:THE NORTHEAST RAILWAY REP. BY THE GENERAL MANAGER MALIGAON GUWAHATI ASSAM. 3:THE DIVISIONAL RAILWAY MANAGER N.F. RAILWAY RANGIYA DIVISION P.O. and P.S. RANGIA DIST. KAMRUP-781354 ASSAM. 4:THE STATE OF ASSAM REP. BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY DEPT. OF LAND REVENUE GOVT. OF ASSAM DISPUR GUWAHATI-6. 5:THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER KAMRUP RURAL AMINGAON DIST. KAMRUP-781031 ASSAM 6:THE CIRCLE OFFICER RANGIA REVENUE CIRCLE P.O. and P.S. RANGIA DIS.T KAMRUP -781354 ASSA Advocate for the Petitioner : MS.G DEKA, MR.M K SARMA,MR.R DASGUPTA,MSK KALITA Page No.# 3/5 Advocate for the Respondent : SC, NF RLY, GA, ASSAM,MR.A BARKATAKI(Rly.Adv.) BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN DEV CHOUDHURY ORDER 19.03.2025 1. Heard Mr. M. K. Sarma, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. A. Barkataki, learned Standing Counsel for the N.F. Railways representing the respondents. 2. The grievance of the petitioners is that they are the owners of a plot of land measuring 3 Bighas 2 Kaths 6 Lechas covered by Dag No. 546 of K.P. Patta No. 27 situated at village Rangia Town, mouza- Panduri under Rangia Revenue Circle, which has illegally been occupied by N.F.Railway authorities and neither any acquisition proceeding has been initiated nor any compensation has been paid to the petitioners. 3. On the other hand, the Railway authorities by filing an affidavit has taken a stand that the land in question is a railway land as per Railway’s land plan which bears the signature of Settlement Officer, Kamrup. It is their contention that the land is under possession of Railay since more than last 40-50 years and there exists Railway buildings (staff quarter, office etc.) which were dismantled recently due to completion of its normal life and the land is bounded by Railway land from each and every side. In the affidavit, they have also denied that the land belongs to the petitioners. 4. The matter had also been taken by the petitioners to the Grievance Cell, Prime Minister’s Officer for settlement their grievance vide Grievance No. Page No.# 4/5 PMOPG/E/2016/0236123 dated 05.07.2016. In the complaint, the petitioners have stated that about 67 years ago, the aforesaid land was acquired by Indian Railway along with others. Accordingly, compensation against such acquisition was paid in favour of the pattadars, except the petitioners. It was also their case projected in the grievance letter that at present the said land is under possession of the Indian Railways at Rangiya Railway Station under N. F. Railway and the family members of the land owners are facing hardship due to lack of financial unassailability. It is their further case that they have also not been able to pay the land revenue as the land is not under their possession. 5. With a similar contention, the petitioners earlier approached this Court by filing a writ petition being WP(C)/2829/2013 and this Court disposed of the said writ petition under its order dated 14.06.2013, wherein, it was concluded that the definite case of the petitioners is that the land belongs to them but on the other hand, it is the claim of the Railways that the land belongs to Railways. Accordingly, the writ petition was disposed of granting liberty to the petitioners to approach the appropriate authority in the Railways with a proper application agitating their grievance. 6. Alleging non compliance of the order dated 14.06.2013 passed by this Court in WP(C)/2829/2013, a contempt petition was filed which was registered as Cont.Cas(C)/38/2014 and same was disposed of under its order dated 05.06.2014 by extending six months further period to the authorities to comply with the earlier order dated 14.06.2013. 7. The representation filed by the petitioners was disposed of by the Railway authorities under its order dated 19.07.2016 contending that the Scheduled land is under possession of Railway for last 40-50 years and there exists Railway buildings (staff quarter, office etc.) which were dismantled recently due to old ages, but the debris of Railway buildings are still lying on the schedule and its Page No.# 5/5 adjacent lands and it was also clarified that the Railway authority has already paid compensation directly to the concerned State authority and it is the responsibility, which lies to the State authorities for disbursement of compensation amongst the pattadars, land holders. 8. From the totality of the matter what is seen is that the stand of the Railway authority is that land was acquired long back and compensation has also been deposited before the Collector for disbursal of the said amount determined by the Collector. On the other hand, from the representation of the petitioners to the PMO, it is seen that they also admitted that the land was acquired about 67 years back by the Railway authority, however, compensation was paid to some of the pattadars but same was not paid to the petitioners and their legal heirs though they were pattadars. 9. In the considered opinion of this Court, such dispute as regards apportionment of compensation cannot be decided in a writ proceeding inasmuch as specific procedures are prescribed under the Land Acquisition Act, for determination of the claims and dispute as regards apportionments amongst interested persons. 10. In view of the aforesaid, this Court is of the opinion that this writ petition lacks merit and the disputes raised cannot be determined in a writ proceeding. Accordingly, same stands closed. However, this order shall not debar the petitioners to take recourse to the remedies available under the Land Acquisition Act or any other remedy permissible and available under law, but not writ petition. JUDGE Comparing Assistant