2026:GAU-AS:10504 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/3289/2026 1. ABDUL HAMID S/O- LATE SIRAJ UDDIN. R/O- VILLAGE- SUPRAKANDI, P.O. -MANIKGANJ, DISTRICT- SRIBHUMI, ASSAM -788712 2: NURJAHAN KHANAM @ NORJAHAN BEGUM D/O- LATE SIRAJ UDDIN. R/O- VILLAGE- SUPRAKANDI P.O. -MANIKGANJ DISTRICT- SRIBHUMI ASSAM PIN-788712 3: HAFSA KHANAM W/O- LATE ABDUR ROUF R/O- VILLAGE- SUPRAKANDI P.O.- MANIKGANJ DISTRICT - SRIBHUMI ASSAM,PIN- 788712 4: NURUL ISLAM S/O- LATE ABDUR ROUF. R/O- VILLAGE- SUPRAKANDI P.O.- MANIKGANJ DISTRICT- SRIBHUMI ASSAM PIN- 788712 5: ASAD UDDIN S/O- LATE ABDUR ROUF R/O- VILLAGE- SUPRAKANDI GAHC010124582026 P.O. -MANIKGANJ DISTRICT- SRIBHUMI ASSAM PIN-788712 6: SAYRA BEGUM D/O- LATE ABDUR ROUF. R/O- VILLAGE- SUPRAKANDI P.O.- MANIKGANJ DISTRICT- SRIBHUMI ASSAM,PIN- 788712 7: NURUN NEHAR D/O- LATE ABDUR ROUF R/O- VILLAGE- SUPRAKANDI P.O.- MANIKGANJ DISTRICT- SRIBHUMI ASSAM -78871 VERSUS 1. THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM, REVENUE (L.R.) DEPARTMENT, DISPUR, GUWAHATI- 781006 2:THE DISTRICT COMMISSIONER,SRIBHUMI DISTRICT- SRIBHUMI,ASSAM- 788710 3:THE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COMMISSIONER (CALA) DISTRICT- SRIBHUMI,ASSAM -788710 4:THE CIRCLE OFFICER KARIMGANJ REVENUE CIRCLE DISTRICT- SRIBHUMI ASSAM- 788710 5:THE NATIONAL HIGHWAY AUTHORITY OF INDIA DWARKA, NEW DELHI -110075 6:THE DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER (P) NATIONAL HIGHWAYS AND INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LIMITED PESKAR LANE SONAI ROAD KANAKPUR PART-I SILCHAR,ASSAM -788006 7:MINAL AHMED CHOUDHURY S/O- LATE MOIN UDDIN. R/O- VILLAGE- SUPRAKANDI P.O.- MANIKGANJDISTRICT- SRIBHUMI ASSAM- 78871 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR M A ISLAM, MS L DAS,MR J I MONDAL Advocate for the Respondent : GA, ASSAM, SC, REVENUE,SC, NHAI BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MANISH CHOUDHURY JUDGMENT 24.07.2026 Heard Mr. M.A. Islam, learned counsel for the petitioners; Ms. N. Bordoloi, Standing Counsel, Revenue Department for the respondent no. 1; Mr. N. Goswami, learned Junior Government Advocate, Assam for the respondent nos. 2 to 4; and Ms. R. Bora, learned Standing Counsel, NHAI for the respondent nos. 5 & 6. 2. The learned counsel for the parties were heard earlier on 23.06.2026 and the facts involved in the writ petition are recorded in the Order dated 23.06.2026. Therefore, for ease of reference, the same are recapitulated herein. 3. The petitioners have stated that they are owners of a parcel of land measuring 16 Kathas and 15 Chataks, covered by Dag no. 293 under Patta no. 288, and situate at Mouza – Lakarkhai, Sribhumi Revenue Circle, District – Sribhumi, Assam. Out of the said parcel of land, a part of it measuring 0.0856 Hectare [12K-12Ch-15.07G] has been acquired by the Central Government in the Ministry of Road Transport and Highways [MoRTH] under the provisions of the National Highway Act, 1956 and the Bharat Mala Project. Pursuant to a Notification dated 06.03.2024 issued under Section 3D[2] of the National Highway Act, 1956, the said area of land measuring 0.0856 Hectare stood vested absolutely in the Central Government, free from all encumbrances. 4. It is stated that for acquisition of the area of land [0.0856 Hectare], an amount of Rs. 81,11,372/- has been determined as compensation under the provisions of the National Highways Act, 1956. Thereafter, a notice dated nil [without office seal] [Annexure-6] was issued to the petitioners under the hand of the Land Acquisition Collector, Karimganj. By the notice, the Land Acquisition Collector recognising the petitioners’ title on the acquired parcel of land, asked them to receive the sanctioned amount of Rs. 81,11,372/- by completing the necessary formalities. 5. It is stated that by an Order dated 28.02.2025 [Annexure-7] passed by the Court of learned Civil Judge, Junior Division no. 3, Sribhumi [‘the Trial Court’] on a petition, Petition no. 363/27 filed in Title Suit no. 105 of 2017 by the respondent no. 7 herein, who is one of the defendants in the said Title Suit, the Trial Court had directed the District Commissioner, Sribhumi not to disburse the compensation amount to any person until further orders from the Trial Court. From the Order dated 28.02.2025, it transpires that the suit land involves in the Title Suit is a plot of land under Dag no. 293 under Patta no. 288 at Mouza – Lakarkhai. 6. In the above backdrop, the petitioners have approached this Court by the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a direction to the respondent authorities, more particularly, the Land Acquisition Officer to disburse that part of the amount from Rs. 81,11,372/-, which has been determined as Zirat compensation amount in their favour. Page 5 of 9 7. During the course of submissions, Mr. Islam, learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the compensation amount at Rs. 81,11,372/- includes the Zirat compensation, and it is that part of the compensation amount i.e. Zirat Compensation amount, which is required to be separated from the total compensation amount of Rs. 81,11,372/- for disbursement to the petitioners. He has pointed out that the Order dated 28.02.2025 passed by the Trial Court when sought to be vacated by one of the plaintiffs, the same was rejected and resultantly, the Order dated 28.02.2025 is still in force. 8. On 23.06.2026, observing as above, this Court permitted the learned counsel for the petitioner, on his request, to file an additional affidavit to bring on record the copies of the plaint filed in Title Suit no. 105/2017 and Petition no. 363/27 filed by the respondent no. 7 herein in the Title Suit in connection with which the Order dated 28.02.2025 came to be passed. An additional affidavit has been filed in deference to the Order dated 23.06.2026 to bring on record the plaint filed in Title Suit no. 105/2017 and Petition no. 363/27. 9. In Petition no. 363/27 [Annexure-20], the respondent no. 7 had specifically made a prayer to the Trial Court that a direction be made to the District Commissioner and his officials in L.A. Branch not to disburse any compensation amount in favour of the plaintiffs or any other persons, by attracting the land of Deed no. 2978 dated 19.05.2004, which was under challenge by the defendants before the Trial Court in the said title suit, and which could attract the plot of Dag no. 293 under Patta no. 288 and Khatian no. 135 at Mouza – Lakarkhai, till disposal of the title suit. 10. It is in connection with Petition no. 363/27, the Trial Court has passed the following Order dated 28.02.2025 :- CR is put up on strength of petition vide no. 363/27 filed by the defendant side praying not to disburse any compensation amount to the plaintiff or any other person under Bharat Mala Project relating to the suit land. Upon considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the defendant and perusing the material available on record, it is evident that the land in question is the subject-matter of the instant suit, which is pending adjudication before this Court and the suit land attracting Dag no. 293, Patta no. 288, Khatian no. 135, Mouza - Lakarkhai which allegedly falls under the Bharat Mala Project. Since the matter is extremely urgent and the fact that the land in question is the subject-matter of the instant suit pending before this Court, it is necessary to issue immediate directions to prevent any irreparable loss or complications. It is further observed that directing the disbursement of the compensation amount at this stage may prejudice the rights of the defendant and affect the fair adjudication of the matter. Hence, to prevent any injustice, this Court deems it necessary to restrain any disbursement of the compensation amount until further orders. In view of the extreme urgency, this order is passed without hearing the plaintiff, as non-granting of immediate relief may render the suit infructuous and lead to injustice. However, such an order does not cause prejudice to the plaintiff, since the matter remains sub-judice before this Court. Accordingly, the District Commissioner, Sribhumi is directed not to disburse the compensation amount to any person until further orders of this Court. Send copy of the order to District Commissioner, Sribhumi, and Circle Officer, Sadar Circle, Sribhumi. D/A to do the needful. Page 7 of 9 Fix as before. [emphasis supplied in bold] 11. In this writ petition, the manner in which the compensation amount of Rs. 81,11,372/- has been arrived at is discernible from Annexure-14 to the Additional Affidavit of the petitioners. The compensation amount of Rs. 81,11,372/- comprises of the value of the acquired land, solatium, the additional market value of the acquired land @ 12%, zirat/agriculture value including 100% solatium, forest value including 100% solatium, and structure value including 100% solatium. Thus, the zirat compensation is part and parcel of the total compensation amount including the value of the land. 12. The Trial Court has directed the District Commissioner, Sribhumi not to disburse the compensation amount pertaining to Dag no. 293 & Patta no. 288 under Khatian no. 135 to any person until further orders of the Trial Court. The Order dated 28.02.2025 is a judicial order passed by the Court of learned Civil Judge, Junior Division no. 3, Sribhumi in Title Suit no. 105/2017. 13. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in a nine-Judge Bench decision in Naresh Shridhar Mirajkar vs. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1967 SC, has held to the effect that certiorari does not lie to quash the judgments of inferior courts of civil jurisdiction. In Surya Dev Rai vs. Ram Chander Rai, [2003] 6 SCC 675, it was observed that an order of the civil court was amenable to writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. In view of the nine-Judge Bench decision in Naresh Shridhar Mirajkar [supra], a two-Judges Bench in Radhey Shyam vs. Chhabi Nath, [2009] 5 SCC 616, expressing disagreement with the said view given in Surya Dev Rai [supra], in so far as regards correction of or any interference with judicial orders of civil court by a writ of certiorari was concerned, had referred the issue to a larger bench by a reference order, reported in Radhey Shyam vs. Chhabi Nath, [2009] 5 SCC 616. The question which had therefore, fallen for consideration before a three-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court in Radhey Shyam vs. Chhabi Nath, [2015] 5 SCC 423, was : Whether the view taken in Surya Dev Rai that a writ lies under Article 226 of the Constitution against the order of the civil court, which has been doubted in the reference order, is the correct view? 14. The law regarding challenge to a judicial order in the certiorari jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been settled by the three- Judge Bench in Radhey Shyam vs. Chhabi Nath, [2009] 5 SCC 616. Answering the reference, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has inter-alia held as under :- 29.1. Judicial orders of civil court are not amenable to writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution; 29.2. Jurisdiction under Article 227 is distinct from jurisdiction from jurisdiction under Article 226. 15. There is a judicial order of the civil court, that is, the Order dated 28.02.2025 passed by the Trial Court in Petition no. 363/27, arising out of Title Suit no. 105/2017. It is an admitted position that the suit land involved in Title Suit no. 101/2017 is the same area of land [0.0856 Hectare], which has been acquired by the Central Government under the provisions of the National Highway Act, 1956. Against acquisition of the suit land measuring 0.0856 Hectare, the compensation amount has been determined at Rs. 81,11,372/- which includes the Zirat compensation amount also. The Trial Court, by its Order dated 28.02.2025 has placed restriction on disbursement of the entire amount of Rs. 81,11,372/-. This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution. 16. The prayer in this writ petition is for release of the zirat component which is a part of the total compensation amounting to Rs. 81,11,372/-. Extracting the Zirat compensation amount out of the total compensation amount of Rs. Page 9 of 9 81,11,372/- in exercise of the writ jurisdiction under Article 22 of the Constitution will be in clear violation of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Radhey Shyam [supra]. 17. In view of the above settled position of law, the challenge to the Order dated 28.02.2025 in this writ petition preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India fails and therefore, the writ petition is dismissed. JUDGE Comparing Assistant Digitally signed by Rupam Basumatary Date: 2026.07.30 17:58:54 +05'30'