Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010020682025 2025:GAU-AS:3298 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : CRP/8/2025 MOHIR UDDIN CHOUDHURY S/O- LT. IBRAHIM ALI CHOUDHURY, VILL- UTTAR KANCHANPUR, PART-II, P.O. JANKI BAZAR, P.S. PANCHGRAM, DIST. HAILAKANDI, ASSAM. VERSUS THE CHIEF MANAGER, POWERGRID CORPN. OF INDIA LTD. (PGCIL) and 4 ORS. POWERGRID CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD. (PGCIL), NER, BADARPUR, P.O. BADARPUR GHAT, P.S. PANCHGRAM, DIST. HAILAKANDI, ASSAM. 2:THE MANAGER POWERGRID CORORATION OF INDIA LTD. (PGCIL) POWERGRID CORORATION OF INDIA LTD. (PGCIL) NER BADARPUR P.O. BADARPUR GHAT P.S. PANCHGAM DIST. HAILAKANDI ASSAM 3:THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER HAILAKANDI P.O. P.S. AND DIST. HAILAKANDI ASSAM PIN - 788155 4:THE ADDL. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER CUM LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER HAILAKANDI P.O. P.S. AND DIST. HAILAKANDI ASSAM Page No.# 2/4 PIN - 788155 5:THE CIRCLE OFFICER ALGAPUR P.O. KALIBARI BAZAR P.S. ALGAPUR DIST. HAILAKANDI ASSAM PIN - 78815 For the petitioner (s) : Mr. M. H. Laskar, Advocate For the respondent (s) : Mr. N. C. Das, Sr. Advocate Ms. M. Devi, Advocate Ms. D. D. Barman, Addl. Sr. Govt. Advocate BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEVASHIS BARUAH O R D E R 18.03.2025 Heard Mr. M. H. Laskar, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Mr. N. C. Das, the learned senior counsel assisted by Ms. M. Devi, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Power Grid Corporation of India. 2. The instant application under Article 227 of the Constitution has been filed challenging the judgment dated 08.08.2016 passed by the Court of the learned District Judge, Hailakandi in Misc.(PG) Case No.49/2012. 3. The ground taken in the instant proceedings is that the learned District Judge, Hailakandi who had the jurisdiction to Page No.# 3/4 determine the compensation payable in terms with Section 16 (3) of the Telegraph Act, 1885 had failed to exercise the jurisdiction and perfunctorily awarded an amount of Rs.3,00,000/- without taking into account the evidence which were duly placed on record. 4. Mr. N. C. Das the learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the Power Grid Corporation of India also submitted that as per the Power Grid Corporation of India, the offer was given only for Rs.30,682/-. However, the learned District Judge, Hailakandi had awarded an amount of Rs.3,00,000/-without any rhyme or reason. 5. Taking into account the above submission, this Court has also perused the impugned judgment dated 08.08.2016, and more particularly, in respect to Issue No.4. From a perusal of the said Issue No.4, it is seen that the learned District Judge, Hailakandi has not decided as to why the learned Court had arrived at the amount of Rs.3,00,000/- and there is no basis seen as to why the learned Court had arrived at a finding that the compensation payable to the petitioner herein is Rs.3,00,000/-. 6. Taking into account the manner in which the impugned judgment dated 08.08.2016 was passed, this Court interferes with the impugned judgment and further remands the matter Page No.# 4/4 back to the learned District Judge, Hailakandi to adjudicate afresh and determine the compensation to which the petitioner herein would be entitled to as per law. 7. Taking into account that both the parties are represented, they are directed to appear before the learned District Judge, Hailakandi on 19.05.2025 on which date, the learned District Judge, Hailakandi shall on the basis of the evidence already on record and upon hearing the parties by giving them an additional opportunity to make oral arguments and if so necessary written arguments and shall dispose of the said proceedings in accordance with law. 8. The records which were called for be returned to the learned Court of the District Judge, Hailakandi by the Registry of this Court forthwith and shall make all the endeavors that the said records are available before the learned District Judge, Hailakandi on the next date so fixed herein above. 9. In view of the above, the instant petition stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant