Page No.# 1/7 GAHC010032542025 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : CRP(IO)/54/2025 DWIJENDRA NATH SAHA S/O LATE GOUR CHAND SAHA, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE BAHADURTARI, WARD NO. 3, TETULTOLA, PO AND PS DHUBRI, DIST DHUBRI, ASSAM 2: JHARNA SAHA W/O SRI DWIJENDRA NATH SAHA RESIDENT OF VILLAGE BAHADURTARI WARD NO. 3 TETULTOLA PO AND PS DHUBRI DIST DHUBRI ASSA VERSUS THE UNION OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF PORTS, SHIPPING AND WATERWAY,HAVING ITS OFFICE AT TRANSPORT BHAWAN, 1 PARLIAMENT STREET, NEW DELHI 110001 2:INLAND WATERWAY AUTHORITY OF INDIA HAVING ITS HEAD OFFICE AT A13M SECTOR 1 NOIDA UTTAR PRADESH 201301 REP. BY THE CHAIRMAN 3:THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY INLAND WATER TRANSPORT DEPARTMENT DISPUR GUWAHATI ASSAM Page No.# 2/7 4:THE DISTRICT COMMISSIONER AND COLLECTOR DHUBRI ASSAM 5:THE ADDITIONAL DEPUTY COMMISSIONER AND LAND ACQUISITION OFFICE OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER DHUBR B E F O R E HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEVASHIS BARUAH Advocates for the petitioner(s) : Mr. SK Goswami Advocates for the respondent(s) : Mr. H Gupta, CGC Ms. DD Barman Govt. Advocate, Assam Mr. RB Goswami For respondent No.3. Date of hearing & judgment : 28.02.2025 JUDGMENT & ORDER(ORAL) Heard Mr. SK Goswami, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners. Mr. H Gupta, the learned CGC appears on behalf of the respondent Nos.1 and 2 being the Inland Waterway Authority of India, Mr. RB Goswami, the learned counsel appears on behalf of respondent No.3 being the Inland Water Transport Department and Ms. DD Barman, the learned Additional Senior Government Advocate, Assam, who appears on behalf of the respondent Nos.4 Page No.# 3/7 and 5. 2. This Court vide a detailed order dated 19.02.2025 enquired with the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the respondents as to whether they have adduced any evidence in the matter, taking into account that it is the burden upon the State in a Reference proceedings to prove the true market value of the acquired land as per the settled principles of law. Ms. DD Barman, the learned Additional Senior Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the Collector and Mr. H Gupta, the learned CGC appearing on behalf of the Inland Waterways Authority of India submitted that no evidence, have been adduced till date by the respondents before the learned Reference Court. Be that as it may, it is noticed from the impugned order dated 10.01.2025 that the Reference proceedings is at the stage of arguments. 3. Today, Mr. SK Goswami, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner had placed before this Court the entire order sheets of LA Case No.02/2020. From the records, it is noticed that the petitioner had adduced evidence of himself and an official witness. The official witness was discharged on 14.06.2023. It is also relevant to take note of that on 29.08.2023, an application was filed by the petitioner/claimants for impleading the Inland Waterways Authority of India as party. The said application was allowed vide the order dated 30.09.2023. 4. Be that as it may, taking into account that after the impleadment of the Inland Waterways Authority of India vide the order dated 30.09.2023, written statement was filed by the Inland Waterways Authority of India on 02.09.2024. Page No.# 4/7 The consequential steps which should have been taken is to permit the petitioners to adduce further evidence, if they wanted to adduce. But from the order sheet of LA Case No.02/2020, nothing in that regard was done. Rather, the learned Reference Court fixed the case for argument. 5. The record further reveals that on 29.11.2024, the petitioner/claimants filed an application to bring on record a document which is a certificate issued by the Circle Officer, Dhubri dated 27.11.2024. The same was denied by the learned Reference Court vide an order dated 29.11.2024. A challenge was made before this Court and the Coordinate Bench of this Court in its wisdom did not find it a fit case for exercising the jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution. With great respect to the Coordinate Bench of this Court, it is relevant to observe that the learned Coordinate Bench of this Court was not drawn the attention as to the manner in which LA Case No.02/2020 was proceeding. 6. This Court upon perusal of the entire order sheets is shocked and surprised in the manner in which the learned Reference Court is proceedings with the said Reference proceeding. It appears that the learned Reference Court failed to take into account that without any opportunity being given to the State as well as the beneficiary to adduce evidence, the burden upon the State to prove the true market value of the land acquired would not be possible. It is, however, clarified that if the State and the beneficiary do not adduce inspite of opportunity being granted than the Reference Court has to fall back on the materials available on record. It is noticed that the petitioners had earlier adduced evidence, but the document adduced earlier dated 27.04.2011 did not specify the date. However, the document which the petitioners sought to bring on record by way of Page No.# 5/7 evidence i.e. the Certificate dated 27.11.2024 bears the period of land valuation. 7. In the backdrop of the above, this Court finds it relevant to take ntoe of that it is a settled proposition of law as has been held by the Supreme Court in the case of Mahesh Dattatray Thirthkar Vs State of Maharashtra, reported in (2009) 11 SCC 141, that it is the burden upon the State to prove the true market value of the acquired property or for that matter it is the burden upon the State to prove that the rate which has been offered vide the award is the true market value of the land as on the date of the Notification issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1984. It is further seen that the respondents herein who are also the respondents in the Reference proceedings had not adduced evidence and the learned Reference Court had proceeded to the stage of arguments. 8. It is pertinent to observe that there is a vast distinction in respect to a suit claiming additional compensation from that of a Reference proceedings. The Reference Court is required to decide the true market value of the land so acquired and on the basis of such opinion, the compensation is to be computed. 9. It is the opinion of this Court that if the LA Case No.02/2020 is permitted to proceed in the manner in which the learned Reference Court is proceeding, it would result in failure of justice and as such, it is, therefore, necessary that this Court in exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction makes right, the wrong. Accordingly, this Court disposes of the instant petition with the following observation(s) and direction(s): Page No.# 6/7 (i). The learned Reference Court i.e. the Court of the learned Additional District Judge Dhubri shall permit the petitioners/claimants in the Reference proceedings being LA Case No.02/2020 to adduce further evidence in the light of the written statement being filed by the Inland Waterways Authority of India. (ii). Mr.SK Goswami, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the claimants submits that the claimants shall file additional examination-in-chief by way of an additional affidavit within 10(ten) days from the date of the instant order. He further submits that for proving the document i.e. the certificate issued by the Circle Officer, Dhubri on 27.11.2024, it would be required that some Officials from the Office of the Circle Officer Dhubri should be called for. He, therefore, submits that appropriate steps would be taken for calling for an official from the Office of the Circle Officer, Dhubri to prove the said certificate dated 27.11.2024 and the said steps would be taken within 10(ten) days. (iii). Taking into account the said submission, this Court permits the petitioner/claimants in LA Case No.02/2020 to submit the additional examination-in-chief by way of an additional affidavit by 17.03.2025. On the very date, the petitioner/claimants in LA Case No.02/2020 shall also file appropriate application calling for an Official to prove the certificate dated 27.11.2024. (iv). The learned Reference Court shall duly accept the additional affidavit so directed to be filed herein and there upon fix the matter for cross-examination of the claimant witness(es). In addition to that, the learned Reference Court shall also summon an official witness for proving the certificate dated 27.11.2024, subject to filing the application by the petitioner/claimants in terms with the liberty given hereinabove. Page No.# 7/7 (v). This Court further directs the learned Reference Court to give opportunity to the State as well as the beneficiary i.e. the Inland Waterways Authority of India to adduce evidence in support of their written statements. (vi). It is, however, observed that if the respondents herein fail to avail the opportunity given by the learned Reference Court, the learned Reference Court shall proceed to bring the Reference Proceeding to a logical conclusion. 10. The certified copies of the order sheet in LA Case No.02/2020 produced before this Court is kept on record and marked with the letter ‘X’. 11. With the above, this revision petition stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant