Page No.# 1/32 GAHC010168362025 2026:GAU-AS:13166 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/4294/2025 KHATANGPANI TEA ESTATE AND ANR BURIDIHING, KHATANGPANI, P.O AND P.S- PENGAREE, DIST- TINSUKIA, SUB-DIVISION- MARGHERITA , PIN-786176, ASSAM, REP. BY ONE OF ITS CO-OWNERS MRS. PRIYANKA BHATTACHARJEE, 2: PRIYANKA BHATTACHARJEE D/O- UDAYJYOTI SARMA R/O- 301 TOWER 6 UNIWORLD CITY HORIZONS NEW TOWN NORTH 24 PARGANAS WEST BENGAL PIN-70015 VERSUS OIL INDIA LIMITED AND ORS A PUBLIC SECTOR UNDERTAKING, HAVING ITS REGD. OFFICE AT P.O.- DULIAJAN, DIST.-DIBRUGARH, ASSAM, PIN-786602. REPRSENTED BY THE RESIDENT CHIEF EXECUTIVE 2:THE GENERAL MANAGER -LAND (HOD) OIL INDIA LIMITED P.O.- DULIAJAN DIST.-DIBRUGARH Page No.# 2/32 ASSAM PIN-786602. 3:THE DISTRICT COMMISSIONER LAND REQUISITION AND ACQUISITION BRANCH TINSUKIA BRANCH TINSUKIA ASSAM PIN-786125 4:NATWA BHUSAN SONOWAL S/O- DHRUBA SONOWAL R/O- PENGAREE CHARIALI P.O AND P.S- PENGAREE DIST- TINSUKIA SUB-DIVISION- MARGHERITA PIN-786125 ASSAM 5:DILIP KUMAR BORA S/O- PRIJARAM BORA R/O- PENGAREE CHARIALI P.O AND P.S- PENGAREE DIST- TINSUKIA SUB-DIVISION- MARGHERITA PIN-786125 ASSAM 6:VIKRAM SARMA S/O- LATE BALINDRA NATH SARMA R/O- 39B PURNA DAS ROAD P.O- SARAT BOSE ROAD P.S- GARIAHAT KOLKATA PIN-700029 7:BULI SARMA W/O LT. DHIRENDRA NATH SARMA Page No.# 3/32 R/O K.K BARUA ROAD P.O. P.S. AND DIST- JORHAT ASSAM 8:SUNITA SARMA ALIAS SUNITA SARMA BARUA W/O SRI BIDYUT BARUA D/O LT. DHIRNDRA NATH SARMA R/O 25D POCKET B SIDDHARTH EXTENSION NEW DELHI-14 9:SHEKHAR SARMA S/O LT. DHIRENDRA NATH SARMA R/O K.K. BARUAH ROAD P.O. P.S. AND DIST- JORHAT ASSAM 10:DIPTI SARMA W/O LT. HIRENDRA NATH SARMA PRESENTLY RESIDING AT 39 B PURNA DAS ROAD SARAT BOSE ROAD P.O. AND P.S. GARIAHAT KOLKATA PIN-700029 11:MANVI SARMA D/O LT. HIRENDRA NATH SARMA R/O B-45 AKASHGANGA APARTMENT PLOT NO.17 SECTOR-6 DWARKA DELHI-110075 12:REETESH SARMA S/O LT. HIRENDRA NATH SARMA PRESENTLY RESIDING AT 39 B PURNA DAS ROAD SARAT BOSE ROAD P.O. P.S. GARIAHAT Page No.# 4/32 KOLKATA PIN-700029 13:MUNIN SARMA S/O LT. JATINDRA NATH SARMA R/O CAMELLIA HOUSE H/NO 3 BYELANE NO.2 PARAG DAS PATH ANANDA NAGAR BAMUNIMAIDAN GUWAHATI-21 KAMRUP METRO 14:PABINDRA NATH SARMA S/O LT. JATINDRA NATH SARMA R/O G.H. ROAD KHELMATI CLUB ROAD CINNAMARA MAJGAON P.O. P.S. CINNAMARA DIST- JORHAT ASSAM PIN-785008 15:AROOP SARMA S/O LT JAGAT CHANDRA SARMA R/O CHOLADHARA CHARIALI P.O. P.S AND DIST- JORHAT ASSAM 16:ANJANA SINGH D/O LT. JAGAT CHANDRA SARMA W/O SUVEER SINGH PRESENTLY RESIDING AT A 202 SCOND FLOOR STELLAR JEEVAN GREATER NOIDA WEST NEW DELHI 17:JUTHIKA GOSWAMI D/O LT. JATINDRA NATH SARMA Page No.# 5/32 W/O LT. PRATAP CHANDRA GOSWAMI PRESENTLY RESIDING AT 39 B PURNA DAS ROAD SARAT BOSE ROAD P.O. P.S. GARIAHAT KOLKATA PIN-700029 18:NISHA BORTHAKUR D/O SRI VIJAY RANJAN BORTHAKUR R/O H/NO.7 SAMPRITI PATH GEETANAGAR ABS KITCHEN ZOO ROAD GUWAHATI-24 ASSAM 19:ASHA BORTHAKUR D/O SRI VIJAY RANJAN BOTHAKUR R/O H/NO.2 GMCH ROAD BHANGAGARH SRIMANTAPUR DISPUR KAMRUP METRO ASSAM PIN-781005 20:POLASH BORTHAKUR S/O SRI VIJAY RANJAN BORTHAKUR PRESENTLY RESIDING AT FLAT NO.102 BISHIRAI AYAN OPP. NEST HERITAGE SECTOR 30 RABALE GOTHIVALI MUMBARI-400701 21:RAHUL KATAKEY S/O LT RABIN PRASAD KATAKEY PRESENTLY RESIDING AT 39 B PURNA DAS ROAD SARAT BOSE ROAD P.O. P.S. GARIAHAT KOLKATA PIN-700029 Page No.# 6/32 22:RAKTIM KATAKEY S/O LT. RABIN PRASAD KATAKEY PRESENTLY RESIDING AT 39 B PURNA DAS ROAD SARAT BOSE ROAD P.O. AND P.S. GARIAHAT KOLKATA PIN-700029 23:RAJEEV KATAKEY S/O LT. ROBIN KATAKEY RESIDENT OF BISHNU RAM PATH WARD NO.8 SIVASAGAR P.O. P.S. AND DIST- SIVASAGAR ASSAM PIN-785640 24:PURABI PHUKAN D/O LT. JATINDRA NATH SARMA W/O DR. DWIJENDRA NATH PHUKAN RESIDENT OF USHA PRIYA REGENCY CHAKRABARTY PATH JORHAT EAST P.O. P.S. AND DIST- JORHAT ASSAM PIN-785001 25:RUMA SARMA W/O LT. SANJAY SARMA R/O FLAT-4 F BAIKUNTHA 114 N.S.C. BOSE ROAD P.O. REGENT PARK KOLKATA WEST BENGAL PIN-700040 26:ROHAN SARMA S/O LT. SANJAY SARMA C/O MAHUA SARKAR SEN UNIWORLD CITY GARDEN 10 FLAT NO.0601 NEW TOWN ACTION AREA 3 KOLKATA Page No.# 7/32 NORTH 24 PARGANAS WEST BENGAL PIN-700156 27:MANDIRA AGNIHOTRI W/O SRI VARUN AGNIHOTRI R/O 20764 E FUERO DRIVE WALLNUT CA91789 UNITED STATE OF AMERICA 28:NANDINI DUTTA W/O SRI VIKRAM DUTT R/O 26 B EAST ROAD JADAVPUR KOLKATA WEST BENGAL PIN-700032 29:MADHU MALTI SARMA W/O LT. ANUP SHARMA R/O 39 B PURNA DAS ROAD SARAT BOSE ROAD P.O. P.S. GARIAHAT KOLKATA PIN-700029 30:INDRANI BEZBORA W/O MR. MADHUR BEZBORA R/O COSMOS APARTMENTS 12/14 BOAT CLUB ROAD PUNE MAHARASHTRA PIN-411001 31:LEENA EZEKIAL W/O JAWAHAR PHEROZE EZEKIAL R/O 6225 NE SKIDMORE STREET PORTLAND OR 97218 USA. 32:RANA RANJIT SARMA S/O LT. HARENDRA NATH SARMA Page No.# 8/32 R/O 39 B PURNA DAS ROAD SARAT BOSE ROAD P.O. AND P.S. GARIAHAT KOLKATA PIN-700029 33:NEENA SARMA W/O MR. JAY SHANKAR SHARMA R/O 20995 CANYON VIEW DRIVE SARATOGA CA95070 CALIFORNIA USA 34:MINA GOSWAMI W/O LT. BEDABRATA GOSWAMI R/O H.NO.86 K.K. ROAD CHENIKUTHI HILL SIDE SILPUKHURI KAMRUP METRO ASSAM PIN 781003 35:SUNANDA SARMA W/O LT. PRAN PRADIP SARMA R/O 49/90A PRINCE GOLAM MD SHAH ROAD TOLLYGUNGE H.O. TOLLYGUNGE KOLKATA WEST BENGAL PIN-700033 36:ANIRBAN SARMA S/O LT. PRAN PRADIP SARMA R/O 49/90A PRINCE GOLAM MD SHAH ROAD TOLLYGUNGE H.O. TOLLYGUNGE KOLKATA WEST BENGAL PIN-700033 37:ARADHANA SARMA D/O LT. AMAR JYOTI SARMA Page No.# 9/32 R/O CHENIJAN TEA ESTATE P.O. AND P.S. LADOIGARH DIST- JORHAT ASSAM 38:AASHISH SARMA S/O LT. AMAR JYOTI SARMA R/O CHENIJAN TEA ESTATE P.O. AND P.S. LADOIGARH DIST- JORHAT ASSAM 39:RUBY SARMA W/O LT. UDAY JYOTI SARMA R/O H/NO.6 BORNALI PATH JAPORIGOG GUWAHATI DIST- KAMRUP METRO ASSAM 40:ANINDITA BARUAH W/O SRI RANVIR KAUSHIK BARUAH R/O FLAT NO.I/306 AKRUTI ORCHID PARK ANDHERI KURLA ROAD NEAR MAHARAJA RESTAURANT SAKINAKA MUMBAI MAHARASHTRA-400072 41:PRIYAM SARMA @ PRIYAM SARMA BARUAH W/O SRI SUBIR KAUSHIK BARUAH R/O D-501 KALPATARU SPELDOR NEAR DATTA MANDIR WAKAD PUNE MAHARASHTRA-411057 42:RANJANA RAJKHOWA W/O SRI ARUP KUMAR RAJKHOWA R/O H.NO.6 GOVERNMENT PRESS ROAD BAMUNIMAIDAN P.S. CHANDMARI GUWAHATI Page No.# 10/32 KAMRUP METRO ASSAM PIN-781021 ALL THE APPLICANTS ARE REPRESENTED BY THEIR ATTORNEY SRI BABUL SONOWAL S/O SRI DHRUBA SONOWAL R/O PENGAREE CHARIALI P.O. AND P.S. PENGAREE DIST- TINSUKIA ASSA BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEVASHIS BARUAH Advocate for the Petitioners :- Mr. H. K. Das, Sr. Advocate :- Ms. D. Mahanta, Advocate Advocate for the Respondent Nos. 1, 2 & 3 :- Mr. D. Saikia, Sr. Advocate :- Mr. A. Sarma, Advocate Advocate for the Respondent No. 4 :- Mr. A. K. Gupta, Advocate Advocate for the Respondent Nos. 7 - 42 :- Mr. P. J. Saikia, Sr. Advocate :- Ms. M. Nirola, Advocate Date of hearing :- 09.09.2026. Date of which judgment is reserved :- N/A Date of pronouncement of judgment :- 09.09.2026. Whether the pronouncement if of the :- Yes operative part of the judgment? Whether the full judgment has been :- No pronounced? JUDGEMENT & ORDER (ORAL) Heard Mr. H. K. Das, the learned Senior counsel assisted by Ms. D. Mahanta, the learned counsel for the Petitioners. Also heard Mr. Page No.# 11/32 D. Saikia, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. A. Sarma, learned counsel for the Respondent Nos. 1 & 2. Mr. D. Saikia, the learned Senior Counsel also informed this Court that he had been instructed to appear for the Respondent No.3. Mr. A. K. Gupta, learned counsel appears for the Respondent No. 4 and Mr. P. J. Saikia, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Ms. M. Nirola, learned counsel appears for the Respondent Nos. 7 to 42. 2. The present writ petition was filed by the Petitioners seeking directions upon the Respondent authorities, more particularly Respondent No. 2 to declare compensation, which would be paid against the land acquired by the Respondent No. 1 for laying down oil pipelines. The Petitioners have also sought for directions upon the Respondent authorities, more particularly to the Respondent No. 2 to declare compensation, which had been already paid and to whom, with regard to the land acquired by the Respondent No. 1 for laying down oil pipelines. The Petitioners have also sought for directions upon the Respondent authorities to complete the payment of the entire compensation to the rightful owners of the Petitioner No. 1 tea estate over the land acquired by the Respondent No. 1 for laying down oil pipelines. Further, the Petitioners have sought for a direction upon the Respondent authorities to stop utilizing the oil pipeline laid down in the Petitioner No. 1’s land. Page No.# 12/32 3. At the outset, it is pertinent to take note that though the Petitioner No. 2 has filed the instant writ petition on behalf of the Petitioner No. 1, but the Petitioner No. 1 is not the juristic person. Further to that, the Petitioner No. 2 apparently is only a co-owner of the land where the Petitioner No.1 Tea Estate is established. Nothing has been placed before this Court to show that the Petitioner No.2 can represent Khatangpani Tea Estate. This aspect of the matter was also recorded by this Court in the order dated 23.06.2026. 4. The materials on record show that admittedly the Petitioner No.2 along with private Respondent Nos. 6 – 42 are the co-owners of the land upon which the Khatangpani Tea Estate is set up. The said tea estate which admeasures 2387 Bighas 0 Katha 3 Lechas is situated over a plot of land covered by various Dags and included in Tea Periodic Patta No. 1 of village Khatangpani Tea Estate 121 Bhu (WLA), under Mouza Buridihing, Margherita Revenue Circle, District – Tinsukia, Assam. 5. The materials on record further show that Khatangpani Tea Estate is managed by a Hindu Undivided Family, namely, M/S J. N. Sarma and Others. The Karta of said Hindu Undivided Family in the year 2017 by a communication dated 23.03.2017 entrusted the Respondent Nos. 9 & 12 to look after the tea estate and manage the operations, finance accounts, liabilities, services and interaction Page No.# 13/32 with the Government Bodies amongst others. 6. Subsequent thereto, the said Respondent Nos. 9 & 12 on the basis of the said authorization given in the communication dated 23.03.2017 entered into an agreement with three persons, namely, Bhanu Sarma, Kuldip Sarma and Natwa Bhushan Sonowal (Respondent No. 4) on 05.02.2019. In terms with the said agreement, dated 05.02.2019, the operation and management of the tea estate along with the tea factory was handed over to the said Bhanu Sarma, Kuldip Sarma and Natwa Bhushan Sonowal (the Respondent No.4) on profit sharing basis. At this stage, it is relevant to observe that the communication dated 23.03.2017 did not confer any power to the Respondent Nos.9 and 12 to deal with the co-ownership rights of the co-owners of the land over which the Khatangpani Tea Estate was established. 7. A perusal of the agreement dated 05.02.2019 would also show that no authority was conferred upon Shri Bhanu Sarma, Shri Kuldip Sarma as well as the Respondent No.4 to transfer, alienate and encumber any part of the tea estate. 8. The records show that while the aforesaid three persons were running the management and operating the Khatangpani Tea Estate, the Director of a Company in the name and style of “N.B. Sonowal Tea Private Limited”, who is the Respondent No.4 in the Page No.# 14/32 present proceedings informed the HUF, i.e. M/S J.N. Sarma and Others, by a communication dated 22.03.2021, that the Oil India Limited (for short, ‘OIL’) was proposing to acquire some portion of the land for pipelines, and as such, a portion of the garden would get damaged. It was also informed that the officials of OIL insisted on acquisition of the land by paying compensation for the land and crops separately and in such events, the compensation would be deposited in the bank account of the HUF of M/S J.N. Sarma and Others. The Respondent No.4 also stated that as the Respondent No.4 was managing all expenditures of the garden and therefore, requested that the said amount which OIL proposes to disburse be disbursed in the bank account of M/S N.B. Sonowal Tea Private Limited wherein the Respondent No.4 was the Director. 9. Subsequent thereto, the record further reveals that on 10.03.2022, the Respondent No. 4 handed over the possession of 41 Bighas 1 Katha 14 Lechas of land and OIL paid a compensation of Rs. 94,70,670/- towards crops value. The Respondent No.4 issued a Declaration stating inter alia that he would not claim any further compensation in future. In addition to that, the Respondent No.4 also declared that he had no objection to the execution of a Sale Deed by the co-owners conveying the land to OIL before the Sub-Registrar after obtaining permission for sale from the Deputy Commissioner, Tinsukia. Page No.# 15/32 10. It is relevant to take note of that subsequent to receiving the amount of Rs. 94,70,670/-, the Respondent No.4 informed vide a communication dated 06.04.2022 to M/S J.N. Sarma & Others that an amount of Rs. 94,70,670/- was received in the bank account of N.B. Sonowal Tea Private Limited on behalf of Khatangpani Tea Estate. 11. The Respondent No. 6 on coming to learn about the aforesaid facts, filed an FIR on 21.04.2022, alleging breach of trust. The said FIR was registered and numbered as Pengree PS Case No. 17/2022. 12. The Respondent OIL on coming to learn about the lodging of the FIR inquired vide a communication dated 04.05.2022 with the Respondent No.4 and sought a reply from the Respondent No. 4. 13. It is further seen from another communication dated 14.07.2022, issued by some authorized signatory of Khatangpani Tea Estate to the Land Department of OIL wherein it is mentioned that there are 44 co-owners of the land in respect to Khatangpani Tea Estate and further a civil suit is pending before the learned 10th Civil Judge (Senior Division), Alipur Court, Kolkata, being Title-R- 831/2019 and it was further mentioned that the tea estate owes various Government Dues and as such, the compensation which is to be payable be first released to the concerned statutory authorities. Page No.# 16/32 14. The records further reveals that while the Respondent OIL continued to correspond with the Respondent No. 4, the co-owners of the land upon whose lands Khatangpani Tea Estate is situated including the Petitioner No.2 have executed various Irrevocable Power of Attorney in favour of one Shri Babul Sonowal. It may not be out of place to mention that though Shri Babul Sonowal is not a party to the present proceeding, but the Respondent No. 7 – 42 are being represented in the present proceedings by Shri Babul Sonowal. The said aspect would be apparent from the vakalatnama so filed in the instant proceedings as well as the application filed by Shri Babul Sonowal seeking impleadment of the Respondent Nos.7 to 42 through him. 15. This Court had also perused the Irrevocable General Power of Attorney dated 08.12.2023 executed by the Petitioner No.2 appointing Shri Babul Sonowal as her Attorney whereby the power was conferred upon Shri Babul Sonowal to sale, lease, transfer all her interest over the land wherein the Khatangpani Tea Estate is established. 16. The record further reveals that based upon the various Power of Attorneys which were executed by the co-owners, the Respondent OIL entered into an Agreement to Sale on 10.04.2024 with the co-owners through their Attorney Shri Babul Sonowal for purchase of an area of 39 Bighas 4 Kathas 11 Leachas of land Page No.# 17/32 contained in various Dags for a total consideration of Rs. 7,01,22,000/-. 17. Perusal of the said Agreement to Sale would show that the sale consideration was fixed on the basis of zonal value rate fixed by the Deputy Commissioner, Tinsukia, dated 25.07.2022. Out of the said total consideration, 50% was paid to Shri Babul Sonowal for and on behalf of the Petitioner No. 2 as well as the Respondent Nos. 6 – 42 and remaining amount of Rs. 3,50,61,000/- was to be paid at the execution of the Deed of Sale. 18. Taking into account the relief so sought for by the Petitioner No.2 at Sl. No. IV that directions should be issued to the Respondent authorities to stop from utilizing the pipeline laid down within Khatangpani Tea Estate, it would be apposite herein to take note of Clause 10 of the Agreement to Sale and the same being relevant is reproduced herein below:- “10. That the FIRST PARTIES / SELLERS hereby agrees to allow the PURCHASER unhindered access to the said lands and further covenants not to hinder or obstruct the PURCHASER, its workers, men, contractor, etc. to enter upon, take possession and use the said lands for its various works and operations.” 19. A perusal of the above quoted clause would show that handing over of the possession by the Respondent No. 4 though unauthorizedly on 10.03.2022 was ratified by the co-owners Page No.# 18/32 including the Petitioner No.2 through the Registered Agreement to Sale dated 10.04.2024. 20. From the affidavit so filed by the Respondent OIL, it also appears that apart from Rs. 94,70,670/-, the Respondent No. 4 was disbursed a further amount of Rs. 7,02,84,000/- as a rehabilitation grant for an area of land admeasuring 40 Bighas. This payment of the amount was made prior to the Agreement to Sale so entered into as well as the Power of Attorneys so executed by the Petitioner No.2 in favour of the Shri Babul Sonowal. 21. In the backdrop of the above facts, it is relevant to take note that when the writ petition was listed before this Court on 23.06.2026, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of Respondent No. 4 had submitted that the Petitioner No.2 was paid an amount of Rs. 34,16,668/- on 27.03.2023 through Bank Transfer to the Petitioner’s bank account. 22. This Court vide order dated 23.06.2026, directed the Petitioner No.2 to file an affidavit as to whether the account mentioned, being account No. 3199301044303 belonged to the Petitioner No.2 and if so, whether the Petitioner No.2 after receipt of the said amount, which was transferred by the Respondent No. 4, had taken steps for returning the said amount. 23. In terms with the aforesaid directions, an affidavit was filed by Page No.# 19/32 the Petitioner No.2 admitting that the account bearing No. 3199301044303 belonged to the Petitioner No.2 and it was also a fact that the amount of Rs. 34,16,668/- was transferred to the said Petitioner No.2’s bank account. However, it was mentioned that the Petitioner No.2 was under an impression that the said amount was paid by the Respondent No. 4 as part of the profits earned from Khatangpani Tea Estate. The said explanation appeared to this Court to be fictitious inasmuch as there was no history of such a huge amount of transfer to the Petitioner No.2 at any point of time. It also appeared to this Court taking into account the facts of the instant case that the Petitioner No.2 had some knowledge of the acquisition to be made by the Respondent OIL and as such, the act on the part of the Petitioner No.2 not to enquire after receiving the amount from the Respondent No.4 prima facie appeared to be an abuse of the process of the Court for want of diligence. 24. This Court, in view of the above, vide order dated 31.07.2026, directed the Petitioner No.2 to deposit the amount of Rs. 34,16,668/- along with interest @9% per annum w.e.f. 27.03.2023 to 03.08.2026 before the Registry of this Court so that the Petitioner can be heard on merits. In pursuance thereto, the Petitioner duly deposited an amount of Rs. 44,48,689/- before the Registrar General of this Court and the records of the present proceedings shows the acknowledgement by the Registry. Page No.# 20/32 25. This Court vide order dated 05.08.2026, made a query upon Mr. A. Sarma, learned counsel appearing for the Respondent No. 1 & 2 as to what necessitated the payment of rehabilitation grant as well as surface compensation, when the Respondent Nos. 1 & 2 was otherwise purchasing the same land from the Petitioner No.2 as well as the other co-owners of the land wherein Khatangpani Tea Estate was established. 26. When the writ petition was listed on 18.08.2026, Mr. A. Sarma submitted that such steps were taken to pay the surface compensation and rehabilitation on the basis of Office Memorandum dated 05.07.2021. On the same date of hearing, it was informed to this Court that amount was released to the Respondent No. 4 on the basis of a communication issued by Shri Babul Sonowal. At the cost repetition, this Court finds it apposite to observe that Shri Babul Sonowal was appointed by the Petitioner as attorney much after the transfer of Rs. 94,70,670/- as well as Rs. 7,02,84,000/- to the Respondent No. 4. 27. Mr. A. Sarma, the learned counsel for the Respondent OIL also submitted that such steps were taken on the basis of a communication received from the authorized signatory of the Khatangpani Tea Estate. Be that as it may, it was the categorical submission of the learned counsel for the Respondent No. 4 that the payment was made to the Respondent No. 4 by the Respondent Page No.# 21/32 OIL on the basis of a communication issued by Shri Babul Sonowal to the Respondent No. 2. 28. Taking into account the conflicting stands, this Court directed the presence of the Chief General Manager Land Department (OIL) through the video conferencing link and also to file an affidavit in that regard. In pursuance to the said directions, an additional affidavit was filed by the Chief General Manager of Land Department (OIL) enclosing various documents. 29. This Court had heard the submissions of learned counsel appearing for the parties as well as Mr. Madhurjya Prasad Chaliha, Chief General Manager Land Department, OIL, who is present before this Court. 30. Mr. H. K. Das, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Petitioner No.2 submitted that insofar as the Agreement to Sale is concerned entered into by her attorney with Respondent OIL that is not a subject matter of the present proceedings. However, the Respondent Nos. 1 & 2 ought not to have entered into any form of negotiation with the Respondent No. 4 inasmuch as the Respondent No. 4 was never given any authority to deal on behalf of the Petitioner No.2. Mr. H. K. Das, the learned Senior Counsel further submitted that the acquisition ought to have been done under the Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of user in Page No.# 22/32 land) Act, 1962 (for short, ‘the Act of 1962’) and the compensation ought to have been determined on the basis of the said Act of 1962. 31. Mr. H. K. Das, the learned Senior Counsel also submitted that in the meanwhile the Power of Attorney which was made by the Petitioner No.2 in favour of Babul Sonowal was recently revoked. 32. Per contra Mr. D. Saikia, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 submitted that purchase of land by way of a sale deed is different from payment of rehabilitation grant. Mr. D. Saikia, the learned Senior Counsel referring to the OM dated 05.07.2021 submitted that in the instant case instead of carrying out an acquisition, the Respondent Nos. 1 & 2 had proposed to purchase the land, for which a Registered Agreement to Sale had already been entered into. In addition to payment of the sale amount agreed upon, the Respondent OIL was required to pay rehabilitation grant and surface compensation in terms with Clause (ii) of the OM dated 05.07.2021. 33. Mr. D. Saikia, the learned Senior Counsel further submitted that as to whether the Respondent No. 4 was authorized to receive on behalf of the Petitioner No.2 is a question between the Petitioner No.2 and the Respondent No. 4. However, insofar as the Respondent OIL is concerned, the payment of the 50% as advance Page No.# 23/32 had been duly paid to the Power of Attorney of the Petitioner No.2 and the surface compensation of Rs. 94,70,670/- and rehabilitation grant of Rs. 7,02,85,000/- have been duly paid to the Respondent No. 4. 34. Mr. D. Saikia, the learned Senior Counsel also submitted that it is not the case of the Petitioner No.2 herein that the Petitioner No.2 is entitled to additional compensation or something more than what she received. Rather, it is the case of the Petitioner No.2 that she has no information as to what amount has been paid by the Respondent OIL. Mr. D. Saikia, the learned Senior Counsel further submitted that the Petitioner No.2 cannot question on laying down of pipelines which is a national pipeline project, more so after having ratified the handing over the possession by the Respondent No. 4 to the Respondent Nos. 1 & 2 in the Registered Agreement to Sale. 35. I have also heard Mr. A. K. Gupta, learned counsel appearing for the Respondent No. 4, more particularly on the issue in respect to the submission made before this Court on 18.08.2026, wherein the learned counsel submitted that there exists a Memorandum of Understanding between the Respondent No. 4 and Shri Babul Sonowal to purchase the Tea Estate. He therefore submitted that the amount of Rs.34,16,668/- was the amount paid to the Petitioner Page No.# 24/32 No.2 as regards her 1/60th share towards purchase of the land and her entitlement towards surface compensation and rehabilitation grant. 36. Mr. A. K. Gupta, the learned counsel produced a Memorandum of Understanding dated 14.06.2023, executed by Shri Babul Sonowal on behalf of the co-owners including the petitioner No.2 for selling the entire Tea Estate to M/S N.B. Sonowal Tea Pvt. Ltd. This Court inquired as to on what basis Shri Babul Sonowal executed the Memorandum of Understanding inasmuch as the said Memorandum of Understanding was executed much prior to the irrevocable Power of Attorney dated 08.12.2023 which was a part of the record. Mr. A. K. Gupta, the learned counsel submitted that the said power can be related to the Power of Attorney executed by the Petitioner No.2 on 29.03.2023. This Court duly perused the said Power of Attorney dated 29.03.2023 so produced which prima facie do not appear to confer a specific power to sale. The said observation is however limited to the present proceedings and would not impact any other proceedings. 37. Be that as it may, the Respondent No. 4 received the surface compensation on 02.03.2022 and the rehabilitation grant on 09.03.2023, that is much prior to the Memorandum of Understanding dated 14.06.2023 as well as the Power of Attorney Page No.# 25/32 dated 29.03.2023 and the amount of Rs.34,16,668/- was transferred on 27.03.2023 to the Petitioner No.2. 38. Mr. P. J. Saikia, learned Senior Counsel for the private Respondent Nos. 6 - 42 submitted that the said Respondents agree with the contentions of the Respondent No. 4 and that the Petitioner No.2 had initiated the instant proceedings by completely abusing the process of Court. Mr. P. J. Saikia, the learned Senior Counsel also submitted that the private Respondents have received their share of surface compensation as well as the rehabilitation grant from the Respondent No.4. 39. In the backdrop of the above, let this Court analyze the materials on record on the basis of the contentions placed before this Court with specific reference to the reliefs sought for in the present proceedings. 40. The relief No. (I) sought for by the Petitioner No.2 is for declaration of compensation which is still pending to be paid against the land acquired by the Respondent OIL for laying down the oil pipelines. In the foregoing paragraphs of the instant judgment, this Court duly took note of the Registered Agreement to Sale dated 10.04.2024 wherein the total purchase price agreed upon was Rs. 7,02,85,000/- and out of which 50% of the same had already been paid to Shri Babul Sonowal, who was the attorney of the Petitioner Page No.# 26/32 No.2 as well as the other co-owners. The Petitioner No.2 is aware of the said Registered Agreement to Sale. In other words, the Petitioner No.2 is aware that the Respondent OIL is purchasing the land along with what is standing thereon by directly purchasing from the Petitioner No.2 and other co-owners. Therefore, the question of any further acquisition of the land by any other mode does not arise. Be that as it may, the Respondent OIL in addition to the purchase of the land was further making payment of surface compensation of Rs.94,70,670/- and rehabilitation grant to the tune of Rs.7,02,85,000/-. The above therefore answers the Relief No.(I) to the writ petition. 41. The Relief No.(II) pertains to directions upon the Respondent OIL to declare about the amount of compensation which have been paid and to whom. The answer to the same is already dealt with while considering the Relief No.(I). Apart from that, payment of the surface compensation and rehabilitation grant were paid to the Respondent No.4 as would be apparent from the materials on record. 42. The Relief No.(III) which was sought for by the Petitioner No.2 is that the Respondent authorities should be directed to make payment of the entire compensation amount to the rightful owners of the Khatangpani Tea Estate for the land acquired by the Respondent OIL for laying down oil pipelines. Page No.# 27/32 43. It is relevant to take note of that insofar as the advance payment towards the purchase amount is concerned, an amount of Rs. 3.5 crores has already been paid to the attorney of the Petitioner No.2 and other co-owners, i.e. Shri Babul Sonowal. In so far as the remaining amount of the sale consideration, the same would be paid only at the time of execution of the Deed of Sale. It is observed that in the circumstances the Power of Attorney dated 08.12.2023 executed by the Petitioner appointing Shri Babul Sonowal as her attorney had been revoked (as no Revocation Deed placed on record but only submission made by the learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioner), the Petitioner is at liberty to inform the Respondent OIL about the same. 44. The Respondent Nos. 6 – 42 who are the other co-owners have no grievance against the Respondent No. 4 for not making payment of their dues from the amount received by the Respondent No. 4 towards the surface compensation as well as the rehabilitation grant and it is only the Petitioner No.2 in the instant case who is aggrieved. 45. From the materials on record it is apparent that the Petitioner No.2’s share in the land of the Khatangpani Tea Estate is 1.665%, i.e. 1/60th and the Respondent No. 4 had already paid an amount of Rs. 34,16,668/- to the Petitioner No.2 on 27.03.2023 and the Page No.# 28/32 Petitioner No.2 pursuant to the order of this Court dated 31.07.2026 have already deposited the said amount along with interest of @ 9% per annum, total amount of Rs. 44,48,689/-. 46. It is opinion of this Court that the amount paid to the Petitioner No.2 was as per the Respondent No.4’s estimation, the Petitioner No.2’s entitlement qua her share of 1.665%. Accordingly, this Court grant liberty to the Petitioner No.2 to submit an application before the Registry of this Court and on such application being filed by the Petitioner No.2, the Registry would permit the Petitioner to withdraw the said amount so deposited. If it is the case of the Petitioner No.2 that Rs. 34,16,668/- is less than what she should have received from the Respondent No.4, the Petitioner No.2 is granted the liberty to approach the Competent Court of civil jurisdiction as it would be a dispute purely between the Petitioner No.2 and the Respondent No. 4. 47. This Court categorically observes that the said amount which have been paid by the Respondent No. 4 to the Petitioner No.2, i.e. Rs. 34,16,668/-, shall be construed only as an estimation of the Respondent No.4 to the entitlement of the Petitioner No.2 qua her share in respect to her rights in Khatangpani Tea Estate. 48. Before proceeding to the next relief, this Court feels it relevant to take note of the submission of the learned Senior Counsel for the Page No.# 29/32 Petitioner No.2 that the land ought to have been acquired under the Act of 1962 and compensation should have been paid in terms with the Act of 1962 read with the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. The submission cannot be accepted for two reasons. Firstly, the said submission is outside the scope of the instant proceedings taking into account the pleadings in the present proceedings and the reliefs sought for. Secondly, after having agreed to sale the land, the Petitioner No.2 cannot be allowed to raise this issue. 49. Let this Court take up the Relief No.(IV) as sought for, i.e. issuing directions to the Respondent authorities to stop utilizing the oil pipelines in the Khatangpani Tea Estate. 50. This Court in the foregoing paragraphs of the instant judgment had duly taken note of the date on which the Respondent No. 4 had handed over the possession of the land to the Respondent OIL, though the Respondent No. 4 had no authority to do so. However by virtue of Registered Agreement to Sale executed by the Petitioner No.2 as well as the other co-owners they ratified the action of the Respondent No.4 of handing over the possession. In addition to that, Clause 10 of the Registered Agreement to Sale specifically empowers the Respondent OIL to use the land. Page No.# 30/32 51. Under such circumstances, the question of stopping the utilization of the oil pipelines as laid down in the Khatangpani Tea Estate cannot be directed. 52. Considering the above, the instant writ petition stands disposed of with the following observations and directions:- (A) The amount received by the Respondent No. 4 from the Respondent OIL on account of surface compensation as well as rehabilitation grant is the amount received on behalf of the co-owners of Khatangpani Tea Estate including the Petitioner No.2. Every co-owner including the Petitioner No.2 has a claim over the said amount to the extent of their co-ownership rights over the land proposed to be transferred to the Respondent OIL. (B) The acquisition of the rights over the land by the Respondent OIL is not on the basis of acquisition being carried out under the relevant acquisition laws. The acquisition of the rights over the land in the instant case by the Respondent OIL is through direct purchase, i.e. by sale. An Agreement to Sale had already been entered into for which 50% of the payment had already been paid by the Respondent OIL and the remaining would be paid at the time of Execution of the Sale Deed. Page No.# 31/32 (C) The Respondent OIL had apart from agreeing to pay the amount agreed to in the Registered Agreement to Sale have already paid Rs.94,70,670/- as surface compensation and Rs.7,02,85,000/- as rehabilitation grant to the Respondent No. 4. (D) The Respondent No. 4 had already disbursed the amounts to the Respondent Nos.7 to 42 and the said Respondents have no objection. The Respondent No.4 had also disbursed an amount of Rs.34,16,668/- to the Petitioner No.2 which is as per the estimation of the Respondent No.4 that the same constitutes the Petitioner No2's share of her entitlement qua her rights. (E) The Petitioner No. 2 is granted liberty to file an application before the Registry for release of the amount of Rs. 44,48,689/- and upon such application submitted, the Registry shall after verification release the said amount to the Petitioner No. 2. (F) If the Petitioner No. 2 is aggrieved that the amount received from the Respondent No.4 does not commensurate to her co-ownership share of her rights, the Petitioner No.2 is granted liberty to approach the Competent Court of civil jurisdiction. Page No.# 32/32 (G) The relief No. (IV) sought to direct the Respondents not to utilize the pipeline stands rejected. (H) No costs. 53. The appearance of Mr. Madhurjya Prasad Chaliha, Chief General Manager, Land Department stands dispensed with. JUDGE Comparing Assistant Pradip Kumar Kalita Digitally signed by Pradip Kumar Kalita Date: 2026.09.15 16:32:00 +05'30'