Page No.# 1/12 GAHC010026742016 2026:GAU-AS:7503 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : W.P.[C]. No. 6036/2016 Sri Kanak Teron, S/o - Lt. Bhogman @ Lt. Bhogmal Mikir, R/o Village - Morogdola Non-K, P.O.-Kamalajari, P.S. & Mouza- Sonapur, District-Kamrup [M], Assam, Pin-782402. ……………… Petitioners -VERSUS- 1. The State of Assam, represented by the Chief Secretary to the Government of Assam, Department of Revenue [LR], Dispur, Guwahati-6. 2. The Deputy Commissioner, Kamrup [M] District, Guwahati-01. 3. The Land Acquisition Officer, Kamrup [M] District, Guwahati-1. 4.The Circle Officer, Sonapur Revenue Circle, Sonapur, Pin-782402, District- Kamrup [M], Assam. ……………… . Respondents Page No.# 2/12 BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MANISH CHOUDHURY Advocates : For the Petitioner : Mr. S.A. Ahmed, Advocate For the Respondent no. 1 : Ms. N. Bordoloi, Standing Counsel, Revenue Department For the Respondent nos. 2 - 3 : Ms. M. Barman, Junior Government Advocate Date on which judgment is reserved : Not applicable Date of Hearing : 26.05.2026 Date of pronouncement of judgment : 26.05.2026 Whether the pronouncement is of the Operative part of the judgment ? : No Whether the full judgment has been Pronounced ? : Yes JUDGMENT & ORDER [ORAL] 1. Heard Mr. S.A. Ahmed, learned counsel for the petitioner; Ms. N. Bordoloi, learned Standing Counsel, Revenue Department for the respondent no. 1; and Ms. M. Barman, learned Junior Government Advocate, Assam for the respondent nos. 2 – 4. Page No.# 3/12 2. The petitioner has stated that he is a permanent resident of Village – Morogdola Non-K, Mouza – Sonapur, Post Office – Kamalajari, Police Station – Sonapur, Sonapur Revenue Circle, District – Kamrup [Metro], Assam. It is further stated that the petitioner was in possession of two plots of land measuring 2 Bighas 2 Kathas 10 Lessas and 1 Bigha 2 Kathas 14 Lessas, covered by Dag no. 41 & 42 & Annual Patta no. 17 & 6, situate at Village – Morogdola Non-K, Mouza – Sonapur, Sonapur Revenue Circle, District – Kamrup [M], Assam. It is the further case of the petitioner that the family of the petitioner was in occupation of the afore-stated plots of land since the time of his forefathers by paying Touzi Bahira [presently, Encroachment Penalty]. In one part of the two plots of land, which are adjacent to each other, the petitioner had constructed his dwelling house and was living with his family after taking electricity connection. In the remaining part of the two plots of land, the petitioner was doing cultivation. 3. In the year 2010, the State Government in order to acquire land for construction of a Broad Gauge Railway Line from Tetelia to Byrnihat initiated a land acquisition case, L.A. Case no. 10/2010 under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 [since repealed] [‘the Act’, for short]. The Broad Gauge Railway Line was being constructed through the Villages of Morogdola, Sonai, Kamalajari, Sarutari, Samata Pathar, Byrnihat and Sonapur Gaon, which fall within the Sonapur Revenue Circle. As the two plots of land which the petitioner was possessing, were located in Village - Morogdola Non-K, a part of them came under the purview of the acquisition process of L.A. Case no. 10/2010. 4. Notices were served upon the recorded pattadars and possessors of Government Khas lands also as interested persons, who lived in the afore- Page No.# 4/12 mentioned villages and whose lands were proposed for acquisition, to hand over the possession of the lands to the District Administration, Kamrup [M]. For the purpose of assessment of Zirat, field verifications were carried out by the officials of the District Administration, Kamrup [M] including the officials from the Sonapur Revenue Circle, and the Railway Administration in December, 2010. After field verification, the respondent no. 4 prepared a list of affected persons for assessment of Zirat compensation listing the assets attached to the areas of land, proposed for acquisition, and a Report was forwarded it to the Collector, Kamrup [M] for approval. In the Report consisting of the list of affected persons, the petitioner was shown to be eligible to receive Zirat Compensation for 162 nos. of rubber trees of medium growth. 5. When after field verification and submission of the Report as regards assessment of Zirat compensation, the amounts assessed were not released to the affected persons for a period of more than two years, some of the affected persons approached this Court by way of a writ petition, W.P.[C] no. 1787/2013. It was projected that despite deposit of the compensation amount by the Railway Administration, the affected persons were not paid Zirat compensation amounts as per the list prepared in the month of December, 2010. After hearing the parties, the writ petition was disposed of by an Order dated 03.05.2013 with a direction to the Collector, Kamrup [M] to verify whether any compensation would be payable to the petitioners therein and upon such verification, if it was found that the petitioners were eligible to receive any compensation for Zirat or land or both, the same should be released to them within a period of two months from the date of submission of a certified copy of the Order by any of the petitioners before the Collector, Kamrup [Metro]. Page No.# 5/12 6. Some of the affected persons had again approached this Court by a subsequent writ petition, W.P.[C] no. 283/2014, expressing an apprehension that they might be evicted from the acquired lands without following due procedure. As it was conveyed before the Court that no steps were taken as on that date to evict the petitioners from their lands, the writ petition was disposed of by an Order dated 28.02.2014 with a direction to the respondents to carry out the direction already made in the Order dated 03.05.2013 in W.P.[C] no. 1787/2013. 7. The petitioner was served a Notice thereafter, by the Office of the Collector, Kamrup [M] in connection with L.A. Case no. 10/2010 in the year 2016, whereby, the petitioner was informed that an area of land measuring 2 Bighas 2 Kathas 14 Lessas under Dag no. 41 of Annual Patta no. 17, which had a total area of land of 7 Bighas 2 Kathas 8 Lessas under it, at Village – Morogdula Non-K had been acquired under the Act for construction of B.G. Railway Line from Tetelia to Byrnihat. The petitioner was directed to appear in the office along with relevant documents such as Indemnity Bond, Bank Passbook, Photos, etc. to receive the land and/or zirat compensation, which had been assessed for disbursement in his favour. 8. It is the case of the petitioner that pursuant to the Notice, the petitioner received a sum of Rs. 52,650/- @ Rs. 325/- per rubber tree. The petitioner did not receive any compensation for acquisition of the land as the land acquired was Government land. Page No.# 6/12 9. It is the grievance of the petitioner that the acquisition authority had assessed Zirat compensation in respect of 162 nos. of rubber trees at a much lesser value than the actual value. According to the petitioner, zirat compensation for each of the rubber tree ought to have been estimated @ Rs. 13,810/- per rubber tree. For such contention, the petitioner has sought to draw support from a Certificate dated 08.04.2016 issued under the hand of the Deputy Rubber Production Commissioner, Rubber Board, Regional Office, Guwahati. In the Certificate, a total amount of Rs. 13,810/- was assessed for a rubber tree by calculating the development cost of a rubber tree as Rs. 2,310/-, expected income from it as Rs. 10,000/-, and cost of rubber wood as Rs. 1,500/-. 10. From the facts projected, it is evident that the Collector, Kamrup [M] as the Land Acquisition Officer had passed an award of Rs. 52,650/- in L.A. Case no. 10/2010 in respect of 162 nos. of rubber trees towards Zirat compensation and the said amount was deposited in the Bank Account of the petitioner. 11. Section 11 of the Act had provided for making of an award by the Collector for the compensation, which in his opinion should be allowed. As per Section 16 of the Act when the Collector was to make an award under Section 11 of the Act, he would take possession of the land, which shall thereupon vest absolutely in the Government, free from all encumbrances. An award made under Section 11 had to be filled in the Collector’s office and once filed, the award, as per Section 12[1] shall be final and conclusive evidence, as between the Collector and the person interested, whether he had appeared before the Collector or not, of the true area or value of the land. Sub-section [2] of Section Page No.# 7/12 12 required the Collector to give immediate notice of his award to such of the persons as were not present personally or by their representatives when the award was made. 12. Section 18 was contained in Part III titled ‘Reference to Court and Procedure’. Section 18 read as under : 18. Reference to Court. – [1] Any person interested who has not accepted the award may, by written application to the Collector, require that the matter be referred by the Collector for the determination of the Court, whether his objection be to the measurement of the land, the amount of the compensation, the persons to whom it is payable, or the apportionment of the compensation among the persons interested. [2] The application shall state the grounds on which objection to the award is taken : Provided that every such application shall be made, – [a] if the person making it was present or represented before the Collector at the time when he made his award, within six weeks from the date of the Collector’s award; [b] in other cases, within six weeks of the receipt of the notice from the Collector under Section 12, sub-section [2] or within six months from the date of the Collector’s award, whichever period shall first expire. 13. The provisions of Section 11, Section 12 and Section 18 of the Act came up for consideration of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Punjab vs. Satinder Bir Singh, [1995] 3 SCC 330. In the said case, the Hon’ble Supreme Court had observed as under :- 8. The question then is whether the notice under Section 12 [2] is a valid notice. From a conjoint reading of Sections 11 and 12, it is clear that notice is only an intimation of Page No.# 8/12 making of the award requiring the owner or person interested to receive compensation awarded under Section 11. On receipt of the notice, if the person interested receives compensation without protest, obviously no reference need be made. The determination of compensation becomes final and binds the parties. When he receives the compensation under protest as contemplated under Section 31 of the Act, the need to make the application for reference under Section 18[1] would arise. At that juncture it will be open to the person interested either to make an inspection of the award which was conclusive between him and the Collector by operation of sub- section [1] of Section 12, or seek a certified copy of the award from the Collector and the contents. Thereon he could make necessary objection for the determination inter alia, of compensation for the land. It is not necessary that the notice should contain all the details of the award including his consideration and its manner of determination of the compensation as opined by the learned Judge of the High Court. It is not incumbent that the person interested should immediately make the reference application on his receiving compensation under Section 31. In other words receipt of the amount and making the reference application are not simultaneous. The statutory operation of limitation mentioned by Section 18[2] does not depend on the ministerial act of communication of notice in any particular form when the Act or Rules has not prescribed any form. The limitation begins to operate from the moment the notice under Section 12[2] is received or as envisaged by Section 18[2]. 14. In Mahadeo Bajirao Patil vs. State of Maharashtra and others, [2005] 7 SCC 440, the Hon’ble Supreme Court had held that Section 18 disclosed that there were three situations for which period of limitation had been provided for making an application for reference. Firstly, if the person making the application was present or represented before the Collector at the time when he made his award, the application must be filed within six weeks from the date of the Collector’s award. Second and third situations were envisaged by Section 18[2][b]. The second situation envisaged was where a Page No.# 9/12 notice was received by the applicant under sub-section [2] of Section 12 of the Act. In such a case, the period of limitation prescribed was six weeks from the date of the receipt of the notice or within six months from the date of the Collector’s award, whichever period would first expire. It was held to be well settled that notice under Section 12[2] of the Act was a clear intimation of making of the award requiring the owner or person interested to receive the compensation awarded under Section 11 of the Act. It was not necessary that the notice should contain all the details of the award including the consideration by the Land Acquisition Collector and its manner of determination of the compensation. No particular form was prescribed by the Act or the Rules. 14.1. In Mahadeo Bajirao Patil [supra], the sole question which arose for consideration was whether the application filed by the appellant therein under Section 18 of the Act was barred by time. In that case, the award was declared on 29.08.1994, which did not award any compensation to the appellant. The appellant who was a mere lessee, was found not entitled to receive any compensation. On 18.09.1994, A telegram was sent to the appellant by the Land Acquisition Officer informing him of the declaration of the award. On receiving the telegram on 20.09.1994, the appellant immediately applied to the Collector for providing him a copy of the award. Thereafter on 09.12.1994, the appellant filed a writ petition before the High Court stating that although an award had been declared, it was not officially served upon him. The appellant annexed an ordinary copy of the award with the writ petition. The appellant filed an application under Section 18 on 20.02.1995. It was contended by the appellant that though the telegram intimated the factum of declaration of the award but necessary particulars were not disclosed therein and since no amount Page No.# 10/12 was awarded to the appellant, the award declared on 29.08.1994 was not an award under Section 11 of the Act. In such backdrop, the Hon’ble Court held that if the appellant was aggrieved by such an award, which was ‘nil award’, it was open to him to seek reference under Section 18 of the Act which the appellant actually did, and it cannot be held that no award as envisaged by Section 11 of the Act was declared on 29.08.1994, since the claim of the appellant was considered and rejected. Therefore, no question of giving any calculation of the manner in which the compensation was computed. Since the application under Section 18 was not filed within six weeks of the receipt of notice under Section 12[2] of the Act, the application was barred by limitation. It was upheld that the telegram sent to the appellant on 18.09.1994 amounted to a notice under sub-section [2] of Section 12 of the Act and in any event, the appellant had knowledge on 09.12.1994, the date when he filed the writ petition, that the award had been declared. Even if such date was taken as the date of knowledge, even then the application under Section 18 was barred by limitation. A Land Acquisition Officer making a reference, or the Court considering a reference, under Section 18 of the Act had no power of condonation of delay in making an application under the said Section. 15. It is not the case of the petitioner that after the award was made by the Collector under Section 11 of the Act, the petitioner had lodged any protest in writing by way of an application to the Collector within the time period prescribed in Section 18 of the Act with regard to the quantum of Zirat compensation. Rather, the petitioner has stated that after receipt of the notice intimating him to receive the compensation for Zirat by submitting necessary documents, he submitted the necessary documents before the Land Acquisition Page No.# 11/12 Officer. The petitioner is found to have received the assessed Zirat compensation amount of Rs. 52,650/- without any protest and no application was made before the Collector objecting to the amount of Zirat compensation so assessed, in writing within six weeks from receiving the notice from the Collector to appear at his office for receiving the compensation assessed by the award passed in his favour in L.A. Case no. 10/2010. There is also no whisper in the writ petition that the petitioner had received the amount under protest. 16. In the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the respondent no. 2, it is averred that the compensation amounts towards Zirat over the Government land were paid to the encroachers of Government land and those encroachers of the Government land were not paid any land compensation as they were not entitled. As regards assessment of Zirat in respect of a rubber tree, the Collector had adopted the compensation rate for rubber tree, calculated and approved by the Government of Tripura, which was one of the largest rubber growing State. The Collector had called for the rates approved by the Government of Tripura for rubber trees with regard to their age/year, and the approved rates of the Government of Tripura were adopted by the Collector for assessment of Zirat in respect of rubber trees by an Order dated 15.07.2011. As per the Order dated 15.07.2011, for rubber tree of age [year] 6-7 years, the amount assessed towards Zirat was Rs. 325/-. As per the Report, in the plot of land acquired vis- à-vis the petitioner, there were 162 nos. of rubber trees [medium growth] and it was by adopting a rate of Rs. 325/- per rubber tree, which was the compensation amount of a rubber tree of 6 to 7 years of age approved by the Government of Tripura, the amount of Zirat compensation of Rs. 52,650/- was calculated for 162 nos. of rubber trees. The Certificate dated 08.04.2016 is Page No.# 12/12 silent with regard to age of the rubber trees. 17. With no written application filed by the petitioner within the period prescribed under Section 18 of the Act protesting to the compensation assessed for Zirat at Rs. 52,650/-, and acceptance of the said amount without any protest, this Court finds that the petitioner cannot thereafter, by changing stance, seek enhancement of the Zirat compensation amount. 18. In view of the above discussion and for the reasons recorded, this writ petition is found to be bereft of any merit and the same is liable to be dismissed. It is accordingly, dismissed. There shall, however, be no order as to cost. JUDGE Comparing Assistant Digitally signed by Pallabi Das Date: 2026.05.29 18:20:27 +05'30'