Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010233902022 2026:GAU-AS:7118 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/7366/2022 MD. FARUK HUSSAIN S/O- LATE MUHIB ULLAH, R/O- DERGAON TOWN, WARD NO. 2, P.O. DERGAON, GOLAGHAT, ASSAM, PIN- 785614. VERSUS UNION OF INDIA AND 5 ORS REPRESENTED THROUGH THE SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF ROAD TRANSPORT AND HIGHWAYS, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, NEW DELHI. 2:THE COLLECTOR CUM DEPUTY COMMISSIONER DIST. GOLAGHAT ASSAM 3:THE ADDITIONAL DEPUTY COMMISSIONER CUM COMPETENT AUTHORITY (LA) DIST. GOLAGHAT ASSAM 4:THE CIRCLE OFFICER DERGAON REVENUE CIRCLE DERGAON MOUZA DIST GOLAGHAT. 5:NATIONAL HIGHWAY INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT CORP. LIMITED 3RD FLOOR PTI BUILDING 4-PARLIAMENT STREET NEW DELHI. 6:THE GENERAL MANAGER (PROJECT) NATIONAL HIGHWAY INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT CORP. LIMITED Page No.# 2/4 OPPOSITE BRAHMAPUTRA ACADEMY JUNIOR COLLEGE PIN- 785001 DIST. JORHAT Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. S K BARKATAKI, MR D K NATH Advocate for the Respondent : DY.S.G.I., MR P NAYAK, SC, PWD,MR. D J DAS (R-1),SC, NHIDC,GA, ASSAM BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANJAN MONI KALITA ORDER Date : 22.05.2026 Heard Mr. D.K. Nath, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. H. Sarma, learned Additional Senior Government Advocate for the respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 4; and Mr. R.K. Talukdar, learned standing counsel, NHIDCL, for the respondent Nos. 5 and 6. 2. The brief facts of the petitioner’s case are that a part of the building structure of the petitioner had been acquired under the National Highways Act, 1956. The building structure of the petitioner has a common wall, beam, joint etc. with the common building which falls in the Right of Way line, which had been considered for acquisition by the NHIDCL. The petitioner’s case is that while acquiring a portion of the building, certain portion of his building had been damaged by such acquisition. In view of the aforesaid, he submitted several representations before the concerned authorities praying for an inspection of the spot and accordingly, ascertain the damage and payment of compensation for such damage. It is contended that a letter dated 09.08.2021, was issued by the Deputy Commissioner, Golaghat, whereby the concerned Executive Engineer was directed to evaluate the partially effected building of the petitioner. Another letter was issued by the Additional Deputy Commissioner (LA), Golaghat Page No.# 3/4 directing the Circle Officer, Dergaon Revenue Circle, Dergaon to submit a detailed report after proper joint verification/re-survey of the building of the petitioner. It is the case of the petitioner that in spite of such directions, no such survey or inspection has been carried out by the concerned authorities and facing with the aforesaid situation, the petitioner has filed the instant petition before this Court. 3. During the pendency of the writ petition, vide order dated 09.08.2023, this Court had directed the learned standing counsel for the PWD to get the instruction as to whether the report/re-survey called for from the Deputy Commissioner, Golaghat had been carried out or not. Subsequent to passing of the aforesaid order by this Court, an affidavit has been filed by the respondent No. 2 in the instant petition, wherein a document dated 12.09.2023, issued by the Executive Engineer P.W. (B&NH) Department, Jorhat District Territorial Building Division to the Additional District Commissioner (LA), Golaghat has been annexed. It is seen from the said document that an evaluation of estimated damage caused was made amounting to Rs. 4,19,010/-. It is also seen that a report was in fact submitted after a joint verification was carried out in the damaged property by three Engineers, including the Executive Engineer P.W. (B&NH) Department, Jorhat District Territorial Building Division. 4. However, it is seen from the records that though the estimate was prepared way back in the year 2023, the same was never forwarded to the NHIDCL for whom the certain property was acquired and thereby, part of the building structure of the petitioner had been damaged. 5. Mr. Talukdar, learned standing counsel, NHIDCL, for the respondent Nos. 5 and 6 submits that the NHIDCL has received the report of the joint verification and about the estimated amount only on 28.04.2026, from the Additional Page No.# 4/4 District Commissioner (LA), Golaghat. In view of the aforesaid, he submits that since they were not part of any joint verification, it would not be possible for them to release the compensation amount without having a joint verification being carried out by their own officials, and as such, he submits that further time may be granted to him to verify and go for a joint verification. 6. The learned counsel for both the parties have agreed that rather than waiting for the instructions in the case from the NHIDCL, a joint verification could be carried out by the petitioner along with the officials of the PWD as well as the NHIDCL within a specified time and thereafter, on finding out the extent of damage, the amount of compensation can be released to the petitioner. 7. In view of the aforesaid, this Court is of the opinion that the instant matter can be disposed of with a direction to carry out a joint verification including the aforesaid three parties within a specified time and thereafter, release the amount for such damage. 8. Accordingly, the joint verification shall be notified by the respondent No. 3 within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. After such exercise being completed, the amount of compensation, along with whatever the petitioner is entitled to under the law, shall be deposited by the NHIDCL to the respondent No. 3 within a period of another 15 days and thereafter, the respondent No. 3 shall release the compensation amount to the petitioner within a period of 15 days. 9. In terms of above, this writ petition stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant