Page No.# 1/7 GAHC010027412025 2025:GAU-AS:4955 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : FAO/15/2025 PURBANCHAL GRIHA NIRMAN UNNAYAN SAMITI A SOCIETY REGISTERED UNDER THE REGISTRATION OF SOCIETIES ACT, 1860, HAVING ITS OFFICE AT HENGRABARI, GUWAHATI-781005. 2: PULIN CHANDRA DUTTA PRESIDENT PURBANCHAL GRIHA NIRMAN UNNAYAN SAMITI C/O. NEW LIFE MEDICOS B.K TOWER GANESHGURI GUWAHATI-06. 3: RAMEN GOSWAMI SECRETARY PURBANCHAL GRIHA NIRMAN UNNAYAN SAMITI C/O. NEW LIFE MEDICOS B.K TOWER GANESHGURI GUWAHATI-06. 4: PARAMA NANDA SHARMA ADVISOR PURBANCHAL GRIHA NIRMAN UNNAYAN SAMITI PLOT NO. 225 KRISHNA NAGAR ANANTA KUTIR PATH AEI ROAD CHANDMARI GUWAHATI-781003 VERSUS USHA DEVI DUGAR WIFE OF SRI MAHENDRA SINGH DUGAR, RESIDENT OF FLAT NO. 3B, HOUSE NO.14, BYE LANE, TARUN NAGAR, GUWAHATI. Page No.# 2/7 2:AMIT KUMAR PATOWARI S/O. LT. JHAWARLAL PATOWARI R/O. REHABARI GUWAHATI-781001 3:RAJESH BHURAT S/O. SRI RIDHKARAN BHURAT R/O. ATHGAON GUWAHATI-781001. 4:SAROJ BHURAT D/O. SRI BIJOY SINGH R/O. ATHGAON GUWAHATI-781001 5:VINAY MITTAL S/O. LT. FULCHAND MITTAL R/O. ATHGAON GUWAHATI-781001 6:URMILA BHURAT D/O. SRI KANWARLAL R/O. ATHGAON GUWAHATI-781001. 7:PAWAN MITTAL S/O. LT. FULCHAND MITTAL R/O. BELTOLA GUWAHATI. 8:SILOCHANE MITTAL D/O. BANWARILAL MITTAL R/O. ATHGAON GUWAHATI-781001. 9:LILA JAIN BHURAT W/O. SRI LABHCHAND BHURAT R/O. ATHGAON GUWAHATI-781001. 10:KAMAL CHAND JAIN BHURAT S/O. SRI BHAWARMAL BHURAT R/O. ATHGAON GUWAHATI-781001 For the appellant (s) : Mr. K. N. Choudhury, Sr. Advocate Mr. R. J. Das, Advocate Page No.# 3/7 For the respondent (s) : Mr. K. P. Pathak, Sr. Advocate Mr. A. Dhar, Advocate BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEVASHIS BARUAH O R D E R 24.04.2025 Heard Mr. K. N. Choudhury, the learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. R. J. Das, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant and Mr. K. P. Pathak, the learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. A. Dhar, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent. 2. This is an Appeal filed under Order XLIII Rule 1 (r) read with Section 104 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, ‘the Code’) challenging the order dated 11.11.2024 passed in Misc.(J) Case No.288/2024 arising out of the Title Suit No.47/2020 (for short, ‘the impugned order’) whereby the learned Court of the Civil Judge (Senior Division) No.1, Kamrup (M) at Guwahati (hereinafter referred to as ‘the learned Trial Court) had passed an order of injunction thereby prohibiting the appellant herein from convening any meeting of the Appellant Society with respect to the properties described in Schedule A to J or from proceeding in any manner regarding the aforementioned properties until the matter is Page No.# 4/7 conclusively adjudicated by the Court following a complete trial in Title Suit No.47/2020. 3. This Court has perused the materials on record including the judgment and order passed by this Court dated 12.09.2024 in WP(C) No.7457/2018. From a perusal of the said judgment and order dated 12.09.2024 passed in WP(C) No.7457/2018, it would be seen that the properties described in Schedule A to J to the plaint are properties which have already devolved upon the State on the basis of an acquisition proceedings. Under such circumstances, the question of granting an injunction in respect to the said proceedings does not arise. 4. This Court had also taken note of the impugned order wherein there is a mention by the learned Trial Court that this Court had distinctly instructed that no compensation shall be disbursed without the prior permission of the Court. The said observation and statement made in the impugned order is perverse in as much as the judgment and order dated 12.09.2024 passed in WP(C) No.7457/2018 do not in any manner restrain the disbursement of the compensation. In this regard, this Court finds it relevant to take note of certain paragraphs of the judgment and order dated 12.09.2024, more particularly paragraph No.11 to 15 which are reproduced herein under:- “11. It is further seen from the said documents placed that the total Page No.# 5/7 amount to which the Petitioner Samity has shown to be entitled to has been calculated on the basis of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition Rehabilitation and Re- settlement Act, 2013 (for short “the Act of 2013”) and more particularly Sections 26 to 30 of the said Act of 2013. The total amount payable to the Petitioner Samity has been quantified at Rs.153,04,12,672/-(Rupees One hundred and fifty three crores, four lakhs, twelve thousand and six hundred and seventy two only). The said document along with the Award which has been placed before this Court are collectively kept on record and marked with the letter “X”. 12. This Court duly enquired with the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the District Administration as to whether the amount has been deposited to the District Commissioner for onward disbursal. The learned counsel submitted that the request has been made to the Requiring Department i.e the Department of Housing and Urban Affairs and the same would likely to be done so at the earliest. 13. Taking into account that the award has already been passed and the land now vest upon the State, the Petitioner Samity herein would be entitled to the said amount. 14. Be that as it may, it is also seen from a perusal of Section 12 1(b) of the Act of 1964 that any persons aggrieved as regards to the apportionment of the compensation can very well approach the Collector by seeking a reference to the Court. It is also seen that when such an application is filed before the Collector, the Collector Page No.# 6/7 has to refer it to the Court and the instant case it would be the Court of District Judge Kamrup (M). It is also seen in terms with Sub-Section (2) of Section 12 of the Act of 1964 that by way of legislation by incorporation, the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act 1894, have been incorporated. Under such circumstances, if an application is being filed expressing disagreement in respect to the apportionment of the amount then in such case the Collector that would be the District Commissioner, Kamrup (M) has to act in terms with Section 30 read with Section 31 (2) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. However, the same is only to be applied subject to a dispute being raised by filing an application as per the mandate of Section 12 (1)(b) of the Act of 1964. 15. Mr. A Biswas, and Mr. A Dhar, the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the petitioners in WP(C) No. 7355/2023 and WP(C) No. 6254/2023 submits that they would forthwith with take appropriate steps in that regard. Fifteen days time is given for filing the appropriate application before the Collector, if so adviced.” 5. From a perusal of the above paragraphs, it would be seen that this Court has duly taken note of that the land had already been acquired by the State Government under the provisions of the Assam Land (Requisition and Acquisition) Act, 1964 (for short, ‘the Act of 1964’) and the compensation was duly quantified at Rs.153,04,12,672/-. It is also pertinent to mention herein that the said amount is lying with the State Government/the District Collector which is yet to be disbursed. However, on account of the Page No.# 7/7 injunction order, the said disbursement has also been stopped which has resulted in loss of interest to both the parties to the instant Appeal. 6. In addition to that, this Court was duly informed by Mr. K. P. Pathak, the learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent that the respondent had also preferred application seeking reference under Section 12 (1) (b) of the Act of 1964 and in pursuance thereto, reference proceedings have been initiated before the District and Sessions Judge, Kamrup (M) at Guwahati. 7. Taking into account the above, the learned Trial Court ought not to have granted the injunction vide the impugned order. Consequently, the impugned order dated 11.11.2024 passed in Misc.(J) Case No.288/2024 arising out of Title Suit No.47/2020 is set aside and quashed. 8. It is observed that setting aside and quashing of the impugned order dated 11.11.2024 passed in Misc.(J) Case No.288/2024 in the present proceedings shall not prejudice any of the parties in the reference proceedings or other proceedings envisaged under law. 9. In view of the above, the instant Appeal stands allowed. No costs. JUDGE Comparing Assistant