Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010038692025 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/1039/2025 KRISHAK UNNAYAN SAMITY, TULSIBARI A REGISTERED SOCIETY, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT, SRI RAJEN CHANDRA KALITA, AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS, S/O LT. ASTI RAM KALITA, VILL HARIANDAB, P.O. JAMTOLA, P.S. RANGIA, PIN 781365, DIST KAMRUP (R), ASSAM VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REP BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVT OF ASSAM, LAND AND REVENUE DEPT, GUWAHATI-06, ASSAM 2:THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER AMINGAON GUWAHATI ASSAM 3:THE MANAGING DIRECTOR ASSAM INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD GUWAHATI-24 R.G BARUAH ROAD ASSAM 4:THE CIRCLE OFFICER RANGIA REVENUE CIRCLE KAMRUP ASSA Advocate for the Petitioner : PLABAN BHARADWAJ, MR. T N SRINIVASAN,MR. M K Page No.# 2/3 CHOUDHURY Advocate for the Respondent : SC, REVENUE, MR. SURAJIT DAS (R-3),GA, ASSAM BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR MEDHI ORDER 25.06.2025 Heard Shri M. K. Choudhury, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Shri M.M. Kashyap, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Shri N. Das, learned State Counsel as well as Shri S. Das, learned Standing Counsel, AIDC. In view of the stand by the respondent no. 4 in the affidavit-in-opposition filed on 29.05.2025 and as agreed to by the learned counsel for the parties, this writ petition is taken up for disposal at the admission stage. The grievance of the petitioner and the members of the Samity was with regard to the proposed move to set up a new Industrial Estate (Phase I) in certain land which has been identified by the AIDC. The petitioner project that the land in question is owned and possessed by the members as pattadars or riots. However, from the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the respondent no. 4 on 29.05.2025, it has been clarified that though certain identification process had taken place, there is no move to acquire the land in question and only certain estimates have been prepared. For ready reference, the averments made in paragraph 9 of the said affidavit-in- opposition are extracted herein below: “That with regard to regard to the statements made in paragraphs 15 and 16 of the writ petition, the deponent states that this office has not yet been submitted any formal land acquisition proposal for setting up Industrial Estate by AIDC for the said plot of land. As instructed by the higher authority, only Page No.# 3/3 acquisition estimate was prepared. In case, the land needs to be acquired, all the due procedures will be followed.” Shri Choudhury, the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner accordingly submits that in view of such stand of the respondents, the writ petition may be closed however with a direction that in case any land is required, the same has to be either acquired or required by strictly following the prescription of law. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this Court is of the opinion that there is no live cause of action to be adjudicated and accordingly, the writ petition is closed. It is however clarified that any process for acquiring the land has to be done by strictly following the prescription of law. JUDGE Comparing Assistant