Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010065672025 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : CRP(IO)/114/2025 ASIRUDDIN AHMED S/O LATE DIDARUDDIN, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE BOGACHALA, TENGARA, SIPAJHAR, DIST- DARRANG, ASSAM, PIN-781126 VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 6 ORS. REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT OF ASSAM, (DMLR) DISASTER MANAGEMENT AND LAND REVENUE DEPARTMENT, DISPUR, GHY-6, KAMRUP (METRO), ASSAM 2:THE DEPUTY SECRETARY TO THE GOVT OF ASSAM DMLR DEPARTMENT DISPUR GUWAHATI-06 KAMRUP METRO ASSAM 3:THE DISTRICT COMMISSIONER DARRANG MONGALDOI ASSAM PIN-784125 4:THE UNDER SECRETARY TO THE GOVT OF ASSAM WATER RESOURCE DEPARTMENT CHANDMARI GHY-03 KAMRUP METRO ASSAM 5:THE CHIEF ENGINEER Page No.# 2/4 WATER RESOURCE DEPARTMENT CHANDMARI GHY-03 KAMRUP METRO ASSAM 6:THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER MANGALDOI WATER RESOURCES DIVISION MANGALDOI DARRANG ASSAM PIN-784125 7:THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT OF ASSAM FINANCE DEPARTMENT DISPUR GUWAHATI-06 KAMRUP METRO ASSA Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. R C DAS, A JUBARIA,MR. H RAHMAN,MR S HUSSAIN Advocate for the Respondent : SC, REVENUE AND DISASTER MANAGEMENT DEPT, A JUBARIA BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ROBIN PHUKAN ORDER Date : 28.03.2025 Heard Mr. R.C. Das, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. R. Borpujari, learned Standing counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and Ms. K. Phukan, learned counsel for the respondent No. 3. 2. In this petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the correctness or otherwise of the order dated 01.03.2025, in Misc. (L/A) Case No. 1/2024, passed by the learned District Judge, Darrang, Mangaldai. Page No.# 3/4 3. It is to be noted here that vide impugned order dated 01.03.2025, the learned District Judge, Darrang, Mangaldai had granted adjournment to the respondents herein to file objection. 4. Mr. Das, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the land of the petitioner was acquired in the year 2001 and a sum of Rs. 86,13,601/- was sanctioned to him by the respondent authorities and he received the same on 12.12.2023. However, while calculating the compensation, the respondent authorities had not taken into account the interest which the petitioner is entitled to, for which he had instituted Misc. (L/A) Case No. 1/2024 and filed one Misc.(J) case for early disposal of the same. But, the learned District Judge, Darrang, Mangaldai, vide impugned order dated 01.03.2025, had granted adjournment to the respondent authorities to file objection. Mr. Das further submits that prior to that date also, the learned District Judge had granted adjournment to the respondent authorities, and that the petitioner is a senior citizen aged 76 years and as such, there is a requirement for early disposal of the petition and therefore, Mr. Das has contended to issue direction to the learned District Judge, Darrang, Mangaldai to expedite the matter. 5. Mr. Borpujari, learned Standing counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 submits that the impugned order suffers from no illegality or infirmity requiring any interference of this Court and the Misc. (L/A) Case No. 1/2024 was instituted by the petitioner pursuant to the order of this Court dated 18.12.2023, passed in WP(C) No. 4942/2021, and though the direction issued by this Court on 18.12.2023, the petitioner had instituted the proceeding only on 04.11.2024 and thereafter, two adjournments were granted by the learned District Judge, Darrang, Mangaldai to the respondent authorities, and as such, Mr. Borpujari submits that his petition is not at all maintainable, and therefore, it Page No.# 4/4 is contended to dismiss the same. 6. Having heard the submissions of learned Advocates of both sides, I have carefully gone through the petition and the documents placed on record and also perused the impugned order dated 01.03.2025, which is read as under: “ Misc (L/A) 1/24 1/3/25 Both sides represented. Ld. counsel for O.P.s have filed petition vide petition nos. 138/25 and 139/25 seeking adjournment. The petition is allowed. Fix 5/4/25 for objection.” 7. Having examined the impugned order dated 01.03.2025, in the light of the facts and circumstances on the record and also in the light of the submissions of learned Advocates of both sides, this Court is of the view that no case for interference of the impugned order dated 01.03.2025, is made out as no illegality or infirmity could be shown in the same by the petitioner. Accordingly, this revision petition stands dismissed. 8. However, the learned District Judge, Darrang, Mangaldai is requested to expedite the trial and to complete the same as soon as practicable. JUDGE Comparing Assistant