Page No.# 1/5 GAHC010054532025 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WA/114/2025 THE BIZARI VANEER AND SAW MILLS LTD. A PUBLIC LTD. COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT, 1956, HAVING THE REGISTERED OFFICE AT BIZARI, DIST- DEBANG VALLEY, ARUNACHAL PRADESH AND HEAD OFFICE AT 15, INDIA EXCHANGE PLACE, KOLKATA-700001. REPRESENTD BY ITS DIRECTOR SHRI SANJAY KUNMAR SINHA, HAVING HIS OFFICE AT BIRLA BUILDING, 8TH FLOOR, 9/1 R.N. MUKHERJEE ROAD, KOLKATA 700001, WEST BENGAL. VERSUS THE UNION OF INDIA AND 10 ORS. REPRESNETD BY SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS, NEW DELHI. 2:THE STATE OF ASSAM THROUGH THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM DEPARTMENT OF HOME AFFAIRS DISPUR GUWAHATI DIST. KAMRUP ASSAM. 3:THE IGP JORHAT CENTRAL RESERVE POLICE FORCE JORHAT ASSAM. Page No.# 2/5 4:THE COMMANDANT 13TH BN. C.R.P.F. CAMP-DILAJEE DIPHU KARBI ANGLONG ASSAM. 5:THE COMMANDANT 97TH BN. C.R.P.F. CAMP- DIPHU KARBI ANGLONG ASSAM. 6:THE COMMANDANT 121 BN. C.R.P.F. DIPHU DIST. KARBI ANGLONG ASSAM. 7:THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER GOVT. OF ASSAM KARBI ANGLONG DIPHU. 8:THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM POLITICAL A DEPARTMENT DISPUR GUWAHATI-6. 9:THE JOINT SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM POLITICAL A DEPARTMENT DISPUR GUWAHATI-6. 10:THE DEPUTY SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM HOME and POLITICAL DEPARTMENT DISPUR GUWAHATI-6. 11:KARBI ANGLONG AUTONOMOUS COUNCIL(KAAC) REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY Advocate for the Petitioner : MR PRATYUSH DAS, MS. N UPADHYAY,MR. P DAS,MS. Page No.# 3/5 BANSHIKA PODDER Advocate for the Respondent : , GA, ASSAM,SC, K A A C For petitioner/applicant(s) : Dr. A. Saraf, Sr. Advocate Ms. N. Upadhyay, Advocate For respondent(s) : Ms. S. Sharma, GA, Assam Mr. Jayanta Chutia, SC, KAAC – BEFORE – HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. ASHUTOSH KUMAR HON’BLE MRs. JUSTICE ARUN DEV CHOUDHURY 04.08.2025 (Ashutosh Kumar, CJ) A factory premises located in Dilajee, Diphu, in Karbi Anglong, which was originally owned by Wood Craft Products Limited, had been purchased by the appellant in the year 2002. It appears from the records that in the year 2000, the 13th Battalion of the CRPF was temporarily accommodated in the afore- noted premises for maintaining law and order in the area, perhaps, under an agreement with the original land owner/Wood Craft Products Limited that nothing shall be charged for such occupation and that the CRPF would vacate the premises whenever such occupation would not be required. It further appears from the records that the premises has remained under the occupation of the CRPF with different Battalion at different times entering the premises. The main concern of the appellant before the learned Single Judge as also before the Division Bench was payment of rental as also the electricity charges Page No.# 4/5 for the use of the premises which had been let out/permitted to be occupied temporarily by the CRPF. After a prolonged litigation, a direction was issued by the Court for an assessment of the rent, which was calculated at Rs. 2,35,599/- per month. This amount of rental was unilaterally reduced to Rs. 15,893/- by the Government which, according to the appellant, was in complete disregard to the independent valuation and assessment conducted by the relevant authorities. The appellant therefore prays that such arbitrary and unjust reduction of the rental amount ought to be interfered with. During the course of argument before the Division Bench, a new plea was taken that perhaps the appellant did not have the right to claim any rental as the document relating to transfer of the land to the appellant were not placed on record. This was seriously rebutted by the appellant and documents were produced indicating that proper permission was accorded for the transfer. In that view of the matter, we, while hearing this appeal, find it necessary to request the learned Advocate General, Assam, to look into the matter and inform us whether the CRPF would require the premises for accommodation of their Battalions and, if so, for what time and under what terms and conditions. The property right of an individual cannot be taken away lightly without the due process of law. We are astonished to learn that neither electricity charges nor the rental is being paid to the appellant, who had purchased 59 Bighas of land from the erstwhile owner under proper order passed by the Karbi Anglong Autonomous Council/State. Whether the electricity charges are being paid by the CRPF or the State is also a question which confronts us. Page No.# 5/5 Learned Advocate General has assured that he will look into the matter and get back to us with the stand of the State with respect to the occupation of the premises of the appellant, by the next date. Re-notify on 29.08.2025. JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE Comparing Assistant