Page No.# 1/7 GAHC010033422020 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/1061/2020 HARMOHAN NATH S/O- LATE DHARMA NATH, R/O- VILL.- CHANGSARI, P.O. CHANGSARI, DIST.- KAMRUP(R), ASSAM, PIN- 781101. VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 6 ORS. REP. BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, DISPUR, GUWAHATI-06. 2:THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER KAMRUP(R) AMINGAON GHY-31. 3:THE ADDITIONAL DEPUTY COMMISSIONER KAMRUP(R) AMINGAON GHY-31. 4:THE CIRCLE OFFICER NORTH GUWAHATI CIRCLE AMINGAON GHY-31. 5:THE PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER KAMRUP(R) AMINGAON GHY-31. 6:THE CHIEF INFORMATION COMMISSIONER ASSAM Page No.# 2/7 JONAKEE COMPLEX PANJABARI GUWAHATI-37. 7:KANAK NATH S/O- LATE JADURAM NATH R/O- VILL.- CHANGSARI P.O. CHANGSARI DIST.- KAMRUP(R) ASSAM PIN- 781101 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. I CHOUDHURY, MS B M BHUYAN,MR R L CHUTIA Advocate for the Respondent : GA, ASSAM, MR D DEKA,SC, REVENUE BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR MEDHI ORDER 19-08-2025 Heard Shri I. Choudhury, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Shri S. S. Roy, learned State Counsel and Shri R. Borpujari, learned Standing Counsel, Revenue Department. 2. The instant writ petition has been filed with the following prayer: “It is therefore prayed that Your Lordship may be pleased to admit this petition, call for the records, issue rule calling upon the respondents authorities to show cause as to why A) A writ in the nature of certiorari shall not be issued setting aside/quashing the impugned decision of the respondent authorities contained in letter No.5/11/2013 vide No.LA-1/2007/Pt-XXIX/1488 issued by Deputy Commissioner, Kamrup (R), Amingaon so for it relates to the petitioner (Vide Annexure-4). B) A writ in the nature of mandamus shall not be issued directing the respondents to grant the compensation to the petitioner for acquiring his two plots of land as mentioned. Page No.# 3/7 C) A writ in the nature of mandamus shall not be issued directing the respondent authorities to furnish the information as sought under RTI Act, and after hearing the parties, cause/causes being shown if any be pleased to make the rule absolute and pass such further order/orders as may deem fit and proper for the ends of justice. And for this act of your kindness the petitioner as in duty bound shall ever pray.” 3. As per the facts projected, the petitioner had purchased two plots of land in the years 1989 and 2007 respectively. The said purchases were duly made vide registered Sale Deeds from the vendor, who had the title. The land however was acquired along with various other lands in the year 2010. As the compensation was not paid, a writ petition was filed in this Court being WP(C)/4222/2010 by two persons claiming to be office bearers of a Society. The petitioner also claims to be one of the members of the said Society. The aforesaid writ petition was disposed of vide order dated 10.08.2012 by directing an enquiry to be made and thereafter to take appropriate action in accordance with law. For ready reference, the directions were given in the said order dated 10.08.2012 are extracted herein below:- “ In the wake of the above, this petition is disposed off with the following directions: 1. The petitioners would submit a certified copy of this judgment and order with the Deputy Commissioner, (Rural), Kamrup, Amingaon, Guwahati within a week herefrom along with a copy of the pleadings of the parties and the documents laid before this Court; 2. On the receipt of the above documents, the Deputy Commissioner, Kamrup (Rural), Amingaon, Guwahati would cause an inquiry to be made into the petitioners claim for compensation for acquisition/taking over of their land; 3. The Deputy Commissioner, Kamrup (R), Amingaon, Guwahati would direct his authorized subordinate functionary to examine the aspect of issuing to the petitioners and the other members of the Union, the Jama Page No.# 4/7 Bandi of their land said to have been applied for by them. The said authority would after due deliberations with the claimants and/or their representatives advise them appropriately in this regard and cause issuance of the Jama Bandi to them, in accordance with law. 4. The authority entrusted with the task of conducting inquiry would provide due opportunity to the claimants and record his decision vis-à-vis the same citing reasons in support thereof. Needless to say, the said authority would be at liberty to call for and examine all documents considered relevant by him for the purpose.; 5. The petitioners and/or the other claimants would cooperate with the process and assist the authority concerned in proceeding with the inquiry. They would furnish to him all necessary informations including documents in support of their claim as and when asked for.; 6. The exercise as ordered should be completed within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order.” 4. Pursuant to the aforesaid direction, an enquiry was made which was culminated in an order dated 05.11.2013. The grievance of the petitioner is that his claim for compensation has been rejected. 5. Shri Choudhury, the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that so far as the plot of land covered by Dag No. 546 and Patta No. 232 is concerned, the compensation was paid to one Shri Kanak Nath (respondent no. 7). The claims for the plot of land covered by Dag No. 611, Patta No. 524 have been rejected with the observation that the claimant could not ascertain his rights as per the Circle Officer, North Guwahati Circle. 6. Shri Choudhury, the learned counsel has submitted that the aforesaid Shri Kanak Nath has been arrayed as a respondent no. 7 and has chosen not to contest this writ petition. He has informed that the said incumbent is the son of Page No.# 5/7 the vendor of the petitioner and at no earlier instance, any notice was served upon him regarding the change of name in the records of right. He has submitted that so far as the other plot of land is concerned, no details have been stated in the order and accordingly, the petitioner had sought information by invoking the Right to Information Act. However, no information was given to him on the alleged ground that the records could not be traced out. He has submitted that in the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the respondent no. 4 on 04.02.2021, there is a mention of a Misc. Case 1146-7/10/2009 pursuant to which such change was made. However, the details of such Misc. case have not been able to be stated in the affidavit. 7. The learned counsel accordingly submits that the present petition be allowed and relief prayed for, be granted. 8. Per contra, Shri Borpujari, the learned Standing Counsel, Revenue Department has submitted that the exercise carried out which culminated in the order dated 05.11.2013 was after a direction of the Hon’ble Division Bench and it can be presumed that all the relevant factors were taking into consideration. He has submitted that as many as 13 numbers of claims were examined and decisions taken by assigning reasons. He has however been candid in submitting that so far as the claim for the second plot of land under Sl. No. 12, the reasons are not elaborate. However, he submits that the rejection has been done as per report by the Circle Officer, North Guwahati Circle, wherein it reflects that the claimant could not establish his claim. He has also submitted that so far as the claim of the petitioner against Sl. No. 11 is concerned, there is involvement of another incumbent (respondent no. 7) against whom the petitioner would have a grievance. He has submitted that in asserting such Page No.# 6/7 claim, the ground of fraud may also come in. As regards the denial of compensation so far as the second plot of land is concerned, since it appears that there is an observation regarding the cancellation of Sale Deed, the same can be the subject matter of dispute in an appropriate Civil proceedings. 9. The aforesaid submissions made by the learned Standing Counsel have also been endorsed by Shri Roy, the learned State Counsel. 10. The cause of action sought to be espoused by the petitioner cannot be said to be without any basis. At the same time, the question would arise as to whether the aforesaid cause of action can be raised in a writ proceeding which cannot adjudicate disputed questions of fact. 11. It appears that so far as the first claim is concerned there would be a dispute with the respondent no. 7, who is the son of the vendor. As noted above, the said incumbent, though made a party in this proceeding has chosen not to appear. This Court in exercise of writ jurisdiction cannot pass an order for apportionment of compensation for land acquisition as those are essentially question of fact which are required to be established by adducing evidence in an appropriate proceedings. So far as the claim for the second plot of land is concerned, a submission is made that the duly registered sale deed has been cancelled by an officer without any authority of law. As the said challenge would also involve factual determination, both the aforesaid issues can be gone into by an appropriate Civil Court. 12. At this instance, Shri Choudhury, the learned counsel has raised a concern on the aspect of limitation. Page No.# 7/7 13. As already observed in this order, the element of fraud would come in and therefore the petitioner would be at liberty to make a contention that it is only from the date when the claim has been rejected that the cause of action has arisen. The petitioner is also at liberty to take the benefit of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963. 14. In view of the aforesaid discussion, this writ petition is closed, however by giving liberty to the petitioner to approach the appropriate Civil Court in the manner indicated above. 15. No order as to cost. JUDGE Comparing Assistant