Page No.# 1/9 GAHC010118542020 2026:GAU-AS:7922 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/3450/2020 PALLAB BORKAKOTY S/O LATE ANANDA RAM BARKAKOTY, RESIDENT OF NA ALI, MG ROAD, PO JORHAT, DIST JORHAT, ASSAM 785001 VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 4 ORS REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, DISPUR, GUWAHATI 6 2:THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER JORHAT ASSAM 785001 3:THE ADDITIONAL DEPUTY COMMISSIONER ( LAND ACQUISITION BRANCH ) JORHAT ASSAM 785001 4:THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER PWD JORHAT STATE ROAD DIVISION JORHAT ASSAM 785007 5:THE GENERAL MANAGER NF RAILWAY MALIGAON GUWAHATI ASSAM 78101 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. S S S RAHMAN, MR A W AMAN,MR K BROOK,SYED BURHANUR RAHMAN Advocate for the Respondent : GA, ASSAM, MR. B SARMA (SC, RAILWAY, R5),SC, Page No.# 2/9 REVENUE,SC, NF RLY,SC, PWD ROAD BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KAUSHIK GOSWAMI ORDER Date : 08/06/2026 1. Heard Mr. A. W. Aman, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. H. Sharma, learned Additional Senior Government Advocate for State of Assam appearing for respondent Nos. 2 & 3, Mr. B. Sharma, learned Standing Counsel, N.F. Railway, appearing for the respondent no. 5, Ms. G. Hazarika, learned Standing Counsel, Revenue and Disaster Management Department, Assam, appearing for the respondent no.1 and Mr. R. Dhar, learned Standing Council, PWD, appearing for respondent no. 4. 2. By way of the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks, inter-alia, compensation in respect of acquisition of his land measuring 6.5 lechas, covered by Dag No. 7802 of Patta No. 94 situated in No. 11 Block under 3 No. Town Mouza, Jorhat East Revenue Circle. 3. The petitioner, a medical practitioner by profession, is stated to be running a pain care, physical medicine and rehabilitation clinic at Jorhat. According to him, he is the owner of a plot of land measuring 6.5 lechas, covered by Dag No. 7802 of Patta No. 94 of No. 11 Block under 3 No. Town Mouza, Jorhat East Revenue Circle, upon which a building has been constructed. 4. The case projected by the petitioner is that, for the purpose of construction of Na-Ali three lane Road Over Bridge (ROB), the respondent authorities acquired the aforesaid land. It is stated that a sum of Rs. 1.09,37,835.00 (Rupees One Crore Nine Lakh Thirty Seven Thousand Eight Page No.# 3/9 Hundred Thirty Five) was paid to the petitioner as compensation. According to the petitioner, the said amount represented compensation only towards the building structure standing on the acquired land and did not include compensation for the entire extent of land acquired. It is further contended that although compensation was paid in part for dismantling of the building, no compensation was either assessed or disbursed in respect of the entire area of land measuring 6.5 Lechas belonging to him. 5. The controversy involved in the present writ petition, therefore, centers around the petitioner’s allegation of non- payment of compensation in respect of the entire acquired land. 6. Heard the learned counsels appearing for the parties and have perused the materials available on record. 7. Before going into the merit of the controversy, it is apposite to take note of the pleadings on record. Relevant paragraph of the writ petition reads as under :- “10. That the petitioner begs to state that during the course of time the respondent authorities had paid compensatory amount of Rs.1,09,37,835.00 (One Crore Nine Lakh Thirty Seven Thousand Eight Hundred Thirty Five) to the petitioner for such acquisition of land. However, the abovementioned compensatory amount is only equivalent to that of building (G+3 structure) standing on the plot of land, both owned by the petitioner himself. The petitioner further begs to submit that till date he is yet to receive the entire compensatory amount for all buildings and the land measuring 6.5 lechas and the abovementioned compensatory amount received by him from the respondent authorities is only of the building and not for the said entire plot of land. The second half of the building as purported to be acquired by the Authority later due to its alleged dangerous nature, the compensation for the same is not paid in entirety. The Page No.# 4/9 land upon which that part of building measuring about little more than 3 lechas is standing will be lying vacant after demolition and no further permission of any building structure will allowed in that tract of land. And also no compensation towards that part of land is granted to the petitioner.” 8. It is evident from the above that the specific grievance of the petitioner as pleaded is that the compensation amount of Rs. 1.09,37,835.00 (Rupees One Crore Nine Lakh Thirty Seven Thousand Eight Hundred Thirty Five) received by him pertain only to the G+3 Building standing on the land and not to the land itself. It is also his case that a further portion of the building was subsequently demolished by the authorities on the ground that the structure has become unsafe and hazardous, yet, compensation for such demolition was not paid in its entirety. The petitioner further asserts that after demolition, a substantial portion of the land becomes incapable of being utilized for any further construction, and despites such deprivation, no compensation has been granted in respect thereof. 9. In response, the respondents have filed their affidavit-in- opposition, wherein they have stated as under:- “2. That in respect of acquisition of land for construction of 3 (three) lane ROB at Jorhat Town in replacement of Railway LC Gate No. FM-58 on Na-Ali at Jorhat in Town in replacement of Railway L.C Gate No. FM-58 ON Na - Ali at Jorhat in village 11 No. Block under 3 No. Town Mouza (L.A.Case No. 3/2019), the land acquisition process has been done as per the Assam Land (Requisition and Acquisition) Act, 1964, however the compensation amount was assessed as De the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition. Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. In exercise of the powers conferred second provision to 3.3(1) of the Assam Land (Requisition and Acquisition) Act 1964. Form (A) vide Memo No. JRA.22/2019/92- A was issued to the pattadars on dated 28.05.2019 (Annexure-1), where it was mentioned that the person interested in the said land to make representation in writing within 15 (fifteen) days of the date of service of this notice why the said land Page No.# 5/9 should not be requisitioned. But no such complain was received from the petitioner Sri Pallab Barkakoty within the stipulated period of 15 days. And thereafter, in exercise of the powers conferred under S.3 (1) of the Assam Land (Requisition and Acquisition) Act, 1964, (Act XV of1964) under Notification No. RLA.231/91.3 dated 22.08.1991, the Collector thereby requisitioned under S.3(1) of the Assam. Late (Requisition and Acquisition) Act, 1964, the land described in the schedule with effect from the date of order, for the said purpose i.e. form B vide Memo No. JRA.22/2019/94-A on 13.06.2019 (Annexure-II) which was also published in two local daily news papers i.e. "The Dainik Janambhumi" and the "The Assam Tribune" on 18.06.2019. Whereas the land described has been requisition under S.3 of the Assam Land (Requisition and Acquisition) Act, 1964. (Act XV of 1964), the owner/tenant/person in occupation of the said land was directed to surrender or deliver possession of the requisitioned land to the Circle Officer, Jorhat East Revenue Circle being the person authorized in this behalf by the Collector within 10 (ten) days from the date of service of the order (Form-C) for the said purpose vide Memo No. JRA.22/2019/96-A dated 17.06.2019 (Annexure-III). Accordingly, Govt. Notification (Form-D) was published in the Assam Gazette vide No. RLA. 32/2019/88 dated 21.08.2019 and also published in two local daily news papers "The Dainik Janambhumi" on dated 20/09.2019 and "The Assam Tribune" on dated 21.09.2019. Subsequently, the pattadars were informed to submit the relevant documents for getting their compensation vide office letter No. JRA.22/2019/167 dated 19.09.2019 (Annexure-IV). Thereafter, for greater public interest and to expedite the construction of R.O.B another notice was led to the pattadars vide office letter No. JRA.21/2017/100 dated 14.10.2019 Annexure-V) to submit the relevant documents within 7 days. Accordingly, an department vide this office order No.JRA.31/2017.101 DATED 22.10.2019 (Annexure -VI). As per land Record (Annexure-VII), the share of patta land of Dr. Pallab Borkakoty is measuring 5.50 Locha covered by Dag No. 7802 of Patta No.94 of village Block No.-11 under 3 No. Town Mouza of Na-Ali, Jorhat out of which 3.30 Locha of land acquired for Na-Ali ROB. In this regard an amount of Rs. 1,09,37,835.00 Page No.# 6/9 sanctioned by the Govt. (Annexure-VIII) out of which land compensation is Rs. 4.91.171.00 (including the 100% solatium 12% Additional market Value) against for the entire structure as per PWD (Building) estimate (Annexure-IX). No complaint from Dr. Pallab Borkakoty in regards to the amount of compensation for his land and building structure was received till the disbursement of the compensation to him. Dr. Pallab Borkakoty has also submitted all required documents to receive the payment and the same was received vide order No.JRA/110/2019/414 dated 27th May, 2020 which is duly acknowledged and hence no balance payment of compensation is pending for disbursement to the Dr. Pallab Barkakoty (Annexure-X). Further, as per the report received from Executive Engineer, PWD, Jorhat Building Division vide letter No. 1232 dated 31.07.2020 (Annexure-XI) and Executive Engineer, PWRD Jorhat, Dergaon & Titabor Territorial Road Division vide letter No. 466 dated 31.07.2020 (Annexure-XII) and Joint Inspection on 31.07.2020, it is learnt that the dismantling work of the building of Dr. Pallalb Borkakoty (located in the plot of land covered by Dag No.7802 of Patta No. 94 of village Block No.11 under 3 No. Town Mouza of Na-Ali, Jorhat) acquired for Na-Ali ROB was done by himself partly in a non technical and haphazard way starting from the bottom of the front side of the building. As a result the top floors of the building were hanging in a very dangerous position which might collapse at any time during the execution of work due to vibration heavy machineries or during earthquake and thus making it vulnerable and sky for the life and property of the people and the workers engaged in the work of ROB. Construction In view of this, considering the threat for life and property of the people and workers a notice was issued vide letter No. JRA/128/2019/55 dated 07.08.2022 (Annexure-XIII) to vacate the building at the earliest. In response of this notice Dr. Pallab Borkakoty submitted a written undertaking in presence of Circle Officer, Jorhat East Revenue Circle and OC, Jorhat Sadar Police station on dated 25.08.2020 (Annexure XIV) mentioning that he will vacate the building on 26.08.2020. Thereafter, another letter was received from Executive Engineer, PWRD, Jorhat, Dergaon & Titabor Territorial Road Division no. 826 on dated 08/09/2020 stating that "due to non technical way of dismantling of the building, the top floors are hanging in Page No.# 7/9 a very dangerous position which might collapse at any time. Therefore the present position of the building is very risky causing threat to lives of nearby people and also the work of construction work" (Annexure XV). Considering the above facts the Deputy Commissioner & Chairperson, District Disaster Management Authority, Jorhat felt the immediate necessity of dismantling of the said building to avoid the unforeseen catastrophe/ mishap as the location is very busy and a construction work of the railway over bridge is also going on very close to the building, she has issued an order in the greater interest of the public vide no. JDDMA03/2016/346 dated 10/09/2020 with direction to Executive Engineer PWRD, Jorhat, Dergaon & Titabor Territorial Road Division, Jorhat, Executive Engineer, PWD Building Division, Jorhat and The Circle Officer, Jorhat East Revenue Circle to take immediate necessary steps to demolish the said building fully in scientific way to prevent/ avoid any such catastrophe/ mishap as per the provisions as laid down in Section 30.2(III),(V), (VIII), (IX), (XI), (XX), (XXIII) of the Disaster Management Act, 2005 (Annexure XVI). Accordingly, The PWRD, Jorhat, Dergaon & Titabor Territorial Road Division, Jorhat and PWD Building Division, Jorhat has started demolishing the structure w.e.f 10/09/2020 in presence of The Circle Officer, Jorhat East Revenue Circle. In the meantime, on dated 16/09/2020 an order against the case no. WP(C) 3450/2020 passed by Hon'ble Gauhati High Court mentioned that "The prayer for interim order stands rejected. The order for maintaining status-quo passed by this court on 10/09/2020 stands vacated. It will now be open for the respondent take appropriate action as may be deemed fit for demolition of the building by following the process of law." (Annexure XVII)” 10. The stand of the respondent authorities thus, in essence, is that the acquisition proceedings for construction of the three lane ROB at Jorhat were undertaken in accordance with the provisions of the Assam Land (Requisition and Acquisition) Act, 1964, while compensation was assessed in terms of Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Page No.# 8/9 Resettlement Act, 2013. It is stated that notices under the prescribed forms A, B, C & D were duly issued and published, the petitioner having failed to raise any objection within the stipulated period. The respondents further contend that all statutory procedures relating to requisition, acquisition and disbursement of compensation were duly complied with. 11. The respondents specifically contend that as per the land records, the petitioner held an interest in 5.50 Lechas of land covered by the aforesaid Dag and Patta, out of which, 3.30 Lechas were acquired for construction of the Na-Ali ROB. It is asserted that the total compensation sanctioned in favour of the petitioner amounted to Rupees 1,09,37,835.00 (Rupees One Crore Nine Lakhs Thirty Seven Thousand Eight Hundred Thirty Five), which included compensation towards the acquired land as well as compensation for the entire structure standing thereon, together with the applicable statutory benefits, including solatium and additional market value. The respondents further state that the petitioner accepted the compensation and submitted all requisite documents for release of the amount, without raising any objection regarding either the valuation or the quantum of compensation. 12. The affidavit-in-opposition further discloses, that during execution of the project, a portion of the building was dismantled by the petitioner in an unscientific and hazardous manner resulting in the upper floors remaining suspended in an precarious condition and possessing serious threat to life, property and the ongoing construction activities. Reports submitted by the concerned engineering authorities coupled with joint inspection indicate the existence of a imminent safety hazard. Consequently, the District Disaster Management Authority directed demolition of the remaining structure in exercise of powers under the Disaster Management Act, 2005. The demolition was thereafter carried out in presence of the competent Page No.# 9/9 authorities. 13. From the pleadings on record, it is evident that the dispute between the parties essentially relates to the quantum and adequacy of compensation payable in respect of the acquired land and the demolished structure. The respondents maintained that compensation has been fully assessed and disbursed in accordance with law, whereas, the petitioner disputes the extent and component of such compensation. It is thus apparent that in order to decide the issue on merit, disputed question of facts, requiring examination of relevant records and evidence is involved. Such disputed questions of facts cannot appropriately be undertaken in exercise of the writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 14. In view of the aforesaid, this Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioner ought to avail the appropriate statutory remedy available in law for adjudicating of his grievance regarding compensation. Accordingly, while declining to enter into the merits of the case, the writ petition is disposed of by granting liberty to the petitioner to approach the competent authority/forum in accordance with law, for redressal of his grievance relating to compensation. If such a representation/application is made, the same shall be considered and dealt with in accordance with law. 15. Writ petition is accordingly disposed of. 16. There shall be no order as to costs. JUDGE Comparing Assistant