Page No.# 1 of 42 GAHC010125902023 2026:GAU-AS:8154 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT [THE HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM & ARUNACHAL PRADESH] WRIT PETITION [C] No. 3367/2023 Oil India Ltd., a company registered under the Indian Companies Act, having its registered office at Duliajan, in the district of Dibrugarh, Assam, represented by its resident Chief Executive. ………………Petitioner -Versus- 1. The State of Assam, represented by the Commissioner and Secretary to The Government of Assam, Revenue & Disaster Management [LR] Department, Dispur, Guwahati-6. 2. The Principal Secretary to the Government of Assam, Revenue & Disaster Management [LR] Department, Dispur, Guwahati-6. 3. The Deputy Secretary to the Government of Assam, Revenue & Disaster Management [LR] Department, Dispur, Guwahati-6 4. The Deputy Commissioner -cum- Collector Tinsukia, District – Tinsukia, Assam. 5. Nandlal & Sons Tea Industries Pvt. Ltd. having its administrative office at Bishmile Chabua in the district of Dibrugarh, Assam, PIN- 78618 Page No.# 2 of 42 ……………….Respondents BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MANISH CHOUDHURY Advocates : Petitioner : Mr. M.K. Choudhury, Senior Advocate Mr. K. Kalita, Advocate Respondent nos. 1, 2 & 3 : Mr. J. Handique, Standing Counsel, Revenue & Disaster Management Department, Govt. of Assam Respondent no. 4 : Mr. D. Nath, Senior Government Advocate, Assam Respondent no. 5 : Ms. G. Goswami, Advocate Date on which judgment is reserved : 10.03.2023 Date of pronouncement of judgment : 10.06.2026 Whether the pronouncement is of the Operative part of the judgment? : No Whether the full judgment has been Pronounced ? : Yes Page No.# 3 of 42 JUDGMENT & ORDER 1. In this writ petition instituted under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the bone of contention is to a process of acquisition of two parcels of land. The dispute began in the year 2000 and at that stage, the petitioner, Oil India Limited sought for the right to use the two parcels of land for carrying out its drilling operation and at a subsequent stage, its role had transitioned from an user to a requiring body. The respondent no. 5 is the proprietor of M/s Hukanpukhuri Tea Estate, who is the land owner of the two parcels of land. 2. The petitioner, Oil India Limited [OIL] is a Government of India Undertaking and it has its Registered Office at Duliajan, District – Dibrugarh, Assam. Its core activities are exploration, production and transportation of crude oil and natural gas. For carrying out its operation, the petitioner [OIL] acquires land in various parts of India, primarily via bipartite settlement. In case of failure to arrive at any such settlement, it used to acquire land under the provisions of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 [since repealed]. Presently, acquisition of land is made under the provisions of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 or, else, it secures the right to use land under the provisions of the Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines [Acquisition of Right of User in Land] Act, 1962 and/or Rules 189 and Rule 190 of the Rules framed under Section 155 [f] of the Assam Land and Revenue Regulation, 1886. 3. This is the 8th round of litigation among the parties. The role of the petitioner [OIL] is of the user as well as the requiring body for the two parcels of land. The role attributable to the respondent nos. 1 – 4 is that of the acquiring authority with the role of the respondent no. 5 as the land owner of the two parcels of land. For appreciation of the issues raised and involved in this round, a narration of the previous events and the previous rounds of litigation are necessary. 4. The two parcels of land involved are located in Village – Sukanpukhuri Tea Estate, Mouza – Tinsukia in the district of Tinsukia, Assam and the total area in Page No.# 4 of 42 the two parcels of land is 56 Bighas, 4 Kathas & 3 Lessas [56B-04K-03L]. Their descriptions are as under :- Table-I 1st Parcel of Land Schedule Village Patta No. Dag No. Area B-K-L Sukanpukhuri T.E. No. 1 Tea Miyadi 1 [Part] 00-01-00 2 [Part] 00-02-00 3 [Part] 00-01-10 30 [Part] 00-02-10 31 [Part] 00-01-03 43[Part] 00-00-07 32 [Part] 00-02-17 33 [Part] 00-03-09 34 [Part] 00-02-08 100 [Part] 03-04-03 104 [Part] 00-03-09 101 [Part] 00-04-01 106 [Part] 02-03-03 109 [Part] 00-00-17 103 [Part] 00-00-12 37 NLR 132 [Part] 23-01-06 180 [Part] 00-01-15 181 [Part] 00-04-04 182 [Part] 03-03-03 95 [Part] 16-02-15 Total 53-01-09 Table-II 2nd Parcel of Land Schedule Page No.# 5 of 42 Village Patta No. Dag No. Area B-K-L Sukanpukhuri T.E. No. 1 T.P. 7 [Part] 00-02-12 8 [Part] 00-02-05 9 [Part] 01-04-08 10 [Part] 00-00-10 22 [Part] 00-02-01 36 [Part] 00-00-15 Total 03-02-14 B = Bigha K = Katha L = Lessa The two parcels of land together are also hereinafter referred to as ‘the subject- land’, at places, for ease of reference. 5. The petitioner [OIL] approached the respondent no. 5, which owns and runs M/s Hukanpukhuri Tea Estate, for procurement of the subject-land for use in the course of its drilling locations, namely, HNE/HNF, HNG, DET and TH under the Bipartite Settlement procedure based on the rates fixed by the jurisdictional Deputy Commissioner, that is, the District Commissioner, Tinsukia [the respondent no. 4] for land value and surface compensation [zirat]. But, the respondent no. 5 refused to accept the land value and surface compensation as per the rates fixed by the respondent no. 4. As a result, the process of procurement of the subject-land through the Bipartite Settlement procedure failed. 6. In view of failure to procure the subject-land by way of a Bipartite Settlement and an urgency arose for using the subject-land for oil exploration, the petitioner [OIL] vide its Letter dated 29.06.2000 requested the respondent no. 4 to grant ‘Right of User’ status in respect of the subject-land under the provisions of Rule 190 of the Rules framed under Section 155[f] of the Assam Land and Revenue Regulation, 1886 [‘the Regulation, 1886’, for short]. By the said Letter, it was informed that the petitioner [OIL] would also construct, develop and maintain the existing road during the operational period. Page No.# 6 of 42 7. On the basis of the Letter dated 29.06.2000, the respondent no. 4 vide an Order dated 17.11.2000, followed by a Corrigendum dated 21.11.2000, granted authority to the petitioner [OIL] to enter upon and carry out surface operation upon the subject-land and also to remove the dwelling houses, buildings, other structures standing on the land or any cultivation over the land. The Order dated 17.11.2000 and the Corrigendum dated 21.11.2000 were issued in exercise of powers vested in him under Rule 190 r/w Rule 189 of the Rules framed under Section 155 [f] of the Regulation, 1886. 8. Pursuant to the Order dated 17.11.2000 and the Corrigendum dated 21.11.2000, the two parcels of land were handed over to the petitioner [OIL] and it took physical possession of the subject-land on 27.11.2000. Subsequently, the respondent no. 4 after an evaluation process, informed the petitioner [OIL] vide an Office Letter dated 11.01.2001 about payment towards surface compensation in respect of the subject-land used by it for drilling locations [HNE/HNF, HNG, DET and TH]. In turn, the petitioner [OIL] vide its Office Letter dated 07.02.2011 informed the respondent no. 5 to collect the payment. But the respondent no. 5 refused to accept the amount offered and took up the matter with the respondent no. 4 demanding higher surface compensation. 9. The respondent no. 5 had thereafter, instituted a number of writ petitions – W.P.[C] no. 1680/2002, W.P.[C] no. 1681/2002, W.P.[C] no. 1721/2002 & W.P.[C] no. 1722/2002 – challenging the legality and validity of the Right to User status granted to the petitioner [OIL] by the respondent no. 4 under Rule 190 r/w Rule 189 of the Rules framed under Section 155[f] of the Regulation, 1886. All those writ petitions were heard by a Division Bench of this Court. The four writ petitions were disposed of by a common Judgment and Order dated 05.04.2011 with the following directions :- [i] The Deputy Commissioner, Tinsukia would take Immediate steps [if not already taken] to initiate a process under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 for compensation thereunder vis-à-vis the land[s] Page No.# 7 of 42 of the petitioner company involved in the instant proceeding and in occupation of the respondent OIL. [ii] If meanwhile, the respondent OIL has not yet submitted its proposal to the above effect, it would do so within two [2] weeks herefrom with the Deputy Commissioner, Tinsukia, whereafter the said authority would take steps in terms of Clause [i] as above. [iii] The Deputy Commissioner, Tinsukia would act strictly under the provisions of the Assam [Sic] Land Acquisition Act, 1894, however, in utmost expedition in view of the time lag in between. The initiation would be done within three [3] weeks herefrom and it would be the responsibility of the said authority to obtain the fresh proposal from the respondent OIL, if in the meantime, though necessary, the same has not been submitted. [iv] The Deputy Commissioner, Tinsukia would ensure that the process of acquisition of the land is speeded up avoiding undue delay therein. The parties, needless to say, would cooperate with the exercise to be so undertaken. [v] The acquisition proceeding should be completed within a period of six [6] months herefrom. 9.1. In the course of argument in those four writ petitions, it was contended on behalf of the petitioner therein, who is the respondent no. 5 herein, that the acquisition of the subject-land if done, the compensation awardable should relate to the period on and from which the same was initiated by a notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and its claim with regard thereto for the period prior to such proceeding would remain unattended. Taking note of the same, the Hon’ble Division Bench considered it appropriate to permit the M/s Nandlall & Son Tea Industries Pct. Ltd [the respondent no. 5] therein to lay its claim for the subject-land for the period on and from which its possession was taken over by the OIL till the initiation of the land acquisition proceeding under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The Hon’ble Division Bench observed that if the Page No.# 8 of 42 claim was made by the petitioner therein, the respondent no. 4 therein would take a decision thereon after hearing both the parties and strictly in accordance with law applicable thereto. The issue would be independent of the one for the compensation under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and would be undertaken by the respondent no. 4 parallelly and complete it within a period of three months from the claim made by the petitioner therein. It was clarified that whatever amount had, in the meanwhile, been paid by the OIL in favour of the petitioner therein would be set-off against its claim admissible in law. 10. It is clear that the matter of payment of surface compensation is independent of the matter of acquisition of the subject-land. The present writ petition is only concerned with the matter of acquisition of the subject-land and henceforth, the discussion will proceed accordingly. 11. After the Judgment and Order dated 05.04.2011, the respondent no. 4 called a Meeting on 30.04.2011 to fix the rate of land value to be offered for both the parcels of land. After a discussion with the representatives of the parties and upon consideration of a Report of the Circle Officer, Tinsukia Revenue Circle as regards the rate of land as per the latest sale deed, decisions were arrived at on a nos. of issues and the decisions were recorded in the Minutes of the said Meeting as under :- In view of the above, the following decisions were taken in the meeting : [1] The rate of Rs. 10,07,872/- per Bigha for land in Semi Urban area i.e. Hukanpukhuri Tea Estate was approved to comply with Hon’ble Court’s order. [2] The rate was approved as a special case and will not be applicable to other OIL related cases. [3] Any enhancement of rate at a later date after the approval of Zonal valuation would have retrospective effect on this case provided Oil India has not yet done the full payment of this matter to Deputy Commissioner by that time. Page No.# 9 of 42 12. After the above decisions were arrived at in the Meeting held on 30.04.2011, the respondent no. 4 had issued an Order on 03.05.2011 fixing the rate for per Bigha of the subject-land in M/s Hukanpukhuri Tea Estate [falling within 3 KMs from the notified town boundary of Tinsukia Town], under occupation of the petitioner [OIL], and to be acquired by the petitioner [OIL] for oil exploration / location / storage and any other purpose related to oil exploration, at Rs. 10,07,872/-. The Order also reflected the decisions recorded in the Minutes of the Meeting, held on 30.04.2011. The terms and conditions of the Order dated 03.05.2011 were recorded as follows :- The terms and conditions of the Order  The rate of Rs. 10,07,872/- per bigha for land in Semi Urban area i.e. Hukanpukhuri Tea Estate was approved to comply with Hon’ble High Court’s order.  The rate was approved as a special case and will not be applicable to other OIL related cases.  Any enhancement of rate at a later date after the approval of Zonal valuation would have retrospective effect on this case provided Oil India has not yet done the payment to Deputy Commissioner, Tinsukia. 13. In the meantime, the respondent no. 4 drew up land acquisition proceedings by registering L.A. Case no. 192/2011 for the 1st parcel of land and L.A. Case no. 193/2011 for the 2nd parcel of land. After passing the Order dated 03.05.2011, the respondent no. 4 also prepared two land acquisition estimates for acquisition of the subject-land and forwarded them to the Government vide Office Letter no. TRQ.1/95-2005/Pt-II/144 dated 07.05.2011 in respect of L.A. Case no. 192/2011 for the 1st parcel for land & Office Letter no. TRQ.1/95-2005/Pt-II/115 dated 07.05.2011 in respect of L.A. Case no. 193/2011 for the 2nd parcel of land. 14. Being aggrieved by the rate of Rs. 10,07,872/- fixed per Bigha by the respondent no. 4, the petitioner [OIL] submitted its objection to the respondent no. 4 vide an Office Letter dated 18.05.2011 requesting the respondent no. 4 to review the Page No.# 10 of 42 valuation of the land. The petitioner [OIL] objected on the point that the procedure adopted by the respondent no. 4 for valuation of land for the two parcels of land was not in accordance with the procedure prescribed by the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. 15. On 16.07.2011, the respondent no. 4 wrote the petitioner [OIL] in reference to the rate already fixed, pursuant to the decisions taken in the Meeting held on 30.04.2011 and by the Order passed on 03.05.2011. It was mentioned that the value of the land was fixed as per Valuation Report received from the Circle Officer, Tinsukia Revenue Circle @ Rs. 4,06,400/- + 30% addl. compensation under Section 23C of the L.A. Act @ Rs. 12,192/- + 12% damage under Clause 23 [1] of the L.A. Act @ Rs. 48,768/- + rent for use of the land for about 12 years @ Rs. 4,30,784/- [@ Rs. 35,000/- per year + addl. rent of Rs. 10,784/- for addl. part year], together totaling Rs. 10,07,872/- only per Bigha. By the Letter dated 16.07.2011, the respondent no. 4 requested the petitioner [OIL] to deposit the amounts of Rs. 5,90,94,812/- for the 1st parcel of land and Rs. 39,26,405/- for the 2nd parcel of land, which were calculated on the basis of the rate above. 16. In the meantime, the Government of Assam in the Revenue & Disaster Management Department issued two Notifications under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 [‘the LA Act’ or ‘the 1894 Act’, for short] in connection with the two land acquisition proceedings, drawn up as L.A. Case no. 192/2011 & L.A. Case no. 193/2011. The Notification dated 20.05.2011 was in connection with L.A. Case no. 192/2011 for acquisition of the 1st parcel of land. The Notification bearing no RLA.197/2011/7 dated 20.05.2011 was in connection with L.A. Case no. 193/2011 for acquisition of the 2nd parcel of land. Both the Notifications were issued invoking Section 17 [4] of the 1894 Act whereby the procedure prescribed in Section 5A was dispensed with. Both the Notifications were published in the Assam Gazette in Issue no. 254 dated 08.08.2011. 17. Closely thereafter, the State Government published two Declarations under Section 6 of the 1894 Act bearing nos. RLA.196/2011/9 pertaining to L.A. Case no. 192/2011 and RLA.197/2011/9 pertaining to L.A. Case no. 193/2011 on the Page No.# 11 of 42 same date, 17.09.2011 stating that both the parcels of land were to be taken by the Government at public expense for a public purpose viz. for drilling location. Both the Declarations were published in the Assam Gazette in Issue no. 351 dated 20.09.2011. 18. The State Government in the Revenue & Disaster Management Department conveyed its approval to the respondent no. 4 on the land acquisition estimates amounting to Rs. 5,90,94,812/- for the 1st parcel of land involved in L.A. Case no. 192/2011 on 29.10.2011 and Rs. 39,26,405/- for the 2nd parcel of land involved in L.A. Case no. 193/2011on 13.10.2011 and requested the respondent no. 4 to take necessary action from his end. 19. On receipt of the approval, the respondent no. 4 wrote to the petitioner [OIL], on 17.11.2011, to deposit the amount of Rs. 39,26,405/- and, on 22.12.2011, to deposit the amount of Rs. 5,90,94,812/- at an early date for taking further necessary action from his end. The petitioner [OIL] claimed to have received the Letter dated 16.07.2011 only on 05.11.2012 and apprising the said fact, it wrote to the respondent no. 4 on 09.11.2012. Thereafter, challenging the Letter dated 16.07.2011 of the respondent no. 4, the petitioner [OIL] preferred a writ petition, W.P.[C.] no. 5372/2013. During the pendency of the writ petition, W.P.[C.] no. 5372/2013, the respondent no. 5 herein as the writ petitioner preferred another writ petition, W.P.[C.] no. 587/2017 with a grievance that the two parcels of land were taken away from it without payment of compensation. 20. Both the writ petitions came up for consideration before the Court on 08.02.2017. The Court took note of the fact that initially, the two parcels of land were taken over by the petitioner [OIL] on the strength of an Order dated 17.11.2000 for the purpose of carrying out drilling activities. As the two parcels of land were permanently required by it, land acquisition proceedings were drawn up vide L.A. Case no. 192/2011 and L.A. Case no. 193/2011. The Court took also notice of the fact that though Notifications under Section 4 and Declarations under Section 6 of the 1894 Act were issued, no further progress Page No.# 12 of 42 was made in the land acquisition proceedings and no determination of the compensation amounts had been made by the Land Acquisition Officer. 20.1. On 08.02.2017, both the writ petitions – W.P.[C.] no. 5372/2013 & W.P.[C.] no. 587/2017 – were disposed of by a common Order. As regards W.P.[C.] no. 587/2017, the Court took note of the fact that though land acquisition proceedings were initiated vide L.A. Case no. 192/2011 and L.A. Case no. 193/2011 the petitioner therein, M/s Nandlall & Sons Tea Industries Pvt. Ltd. [the respondent no. 5 herein] was not paid the compensation amount because those proceedings were not completed. As agreed to by the parties, the writ petition was disposed of with a direction to the Deputy Commissioner, Tinsukia – cum – Land Revenue Officer to immediately proceed with the two land acquisition proceedings, that is, L.A. Case no. 192/2011 and L.A. Case no. 193/2011 to bring them to their logical conclusion. It was directed that the respondent no. 4 would arrive at a definite determination as to what compensation was to be paid to M/s Nandlall & Sons Tea Industries Pvt. Ltd. [the respondent no. 5 herein]. It was directed that the Deputy Commissioner, Tinsukia shall bring the proceedings to conclusion by arriving at an appropriate determination of the compensation amounts to be paid within a period of two months from the date of receipt of the Order. 20.2. The Court having regard to the contents of the Letter dated 16.07.2011 of the respondent no. 4 observed that the amounts of Rs. 5,90,94,812/- was fixed for the 1st parcel of land involved in L.A. Case no. 192/2011 and Rs. 39,26,405/- was fixed for the 2nd parcel of land involved in L.A. Case no. 193/2011, purportedly in terms of the common Judgment and Order dated 05.04.2011. The Court took note of the fact that the petitioner [OIL] took over the two parcels of land under Rule 189 and Rule 190 of the Rules framed under Section 155[f] of the Regulation, 1886. The Court also took note of the fact that in the writ petitions wherein the common Judgment and Order was delivered on 05.04.2011, a challenge was made by the land-owner [M/s Nandlall & Sons Industries Pvt. Ltd.] as regards the taking over of the two parcels of land. The Coordinate Bench also took notice of the fact that the Division Bench had closed the writ petitions Page No.# 13 of 42 without interfering with the process of taking over of the two parcels of land, by directing the respondent no. 4 to take a decision in accordance with the applicable law. The writ petition, W.P.[C.] 5372/2013 was disposed with a direction to the respondent no. 4 to revisit the provisions of the Letter dated 16.07.2011 and to arrive at a proper and due compensation payable to the landowner by following due procedure of law. 21. On 28.04.2017, the petitioner [OIL] wrote to the respondent no. 4 to cavass that as per the zonal value, the land value should be Rs. 3,00,000/- per Bigha and Rs. 2,00,000/- per Bigha for tea and paddy land respectively involved in the process of land acquisition. The fixation of the rate for the subject-land @ Rs. 10,07,782/- per Bigha was higher than the prevailing market rate and therefore, there was a need to re-visit the rates mentioned in the Letter dated 16.07.2011 and to arrive at a proper and due compensation following due procedure of law. 22. On 21.05.2017, the Deputy Commissioner, Tinsukia [the respondent no. 4] passed the following order :- GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER :::: TINSUKIA DISTRICT [LAND ACQUISITION BRANCH] No.TRQ.1/95-2005/PT.1/ Dated Tinsukia the 21st May, 2017 ORDER * * * * * * * * * * * * Whereas, both the parties has submitted their respective written statement in support of their claims and objection in regard to the value of the land as determined in the instant LA Case No. 17/2008 and examining the case records of Land Acquisition Case No. 17/2008, the Oil India Limited has not deposited the award amount till date, whatever be the amount nor ask any Page No.# 14 of 42 time for depositing the award amount consistent with the record that the Hukanpukhuri T.E. has not received any amount of award and hence as per the provision of under Section 24 [2] it is decided that since Oil India Limited has not deposited the award amount as per Section 11 of the LA Act 1894, hence the proceeding drawn under provision of 1894, the same is deserved to be lapsed. In this context, the views furnished by Govt. Pleader, Tinsukia has also been seen. In view of the above, further proceeding in the LA Case No. 192 and 193 of 2011 should be carried out as per provision of the new Act i.e. the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 and to calculate the amount of compensation accordingly. Let the parties concerned be informed accordingly. In the meantime, Land Acquisition Branch of the D.C.'s Office, Tinsukia will prepare proposal regarding quantum of compensation payable in accordance with the relevant provision of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 within a month from the date of passing this order for onward submission to the Government in the Revenue & DM [LR] Department. Deputy Commissioner Tinsukia Dated Tinsukia the 21st May, 2017 23. The petitioner [OIL] on 22.06.2017, submitted an objection against the decision of the respondent no. 4 regarding his decision dated 21.05.2017 to process the case under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 [‘the RFCTLARR Act’ or ‘the 2013 Act’, for short]. The same objection was reiterated in a subsequent Letter dated 03.07.2017. Page No.# 15 of 42 24. The Government in the Revenue & Disaster Management Department vide an Office Letter dated 25.07.2017, returned the award statements prepared and submitted by the respondent no. 4 in L.A. Case no. 192/2011 and L.A. Case no. 193/2011 with a request to him to submit the same through the petitioner [OIL], as it was the requiring body for the subject-land and a party in W.P.[C] no. 587/2017 [Nandlall & Sons Tea Industries Pvt. Ltd. vs. the State of Assam and others] & W.P.[C] no. 2372/2013 [Oil India Limited vs. the State of Assam and others], wherein the Order dated 08.02.2017 was passed by the Court. 25. The respondent no. 4 on 15.09.2017 and 19.09.2017, forwarded two award statements prepared for amounts of Rs. 10,81,59,720/- and Rs. 71,84,939/- in respect of the 1st parcel of land and 2nd parcel of land respectively in connection with L.A. Case no. 192/2011 and L.A. Case no. 193/2011. It was mentioned that the award statements were prepared following the direction made in the Order dated 08.02.2017 and after going through the land acquisition case records and the written statements submitted by both the parties and determining the compensation amounts under the provisions of the 2013 Act. 26. The petitioner [OIL] on 09.10.2017 had once again made objection to the manner in which the award statements under the 2013 Act were prepared and forwarded by the respondent no. 4. It its Letter addressed to the Revenue & Disaster Management Department, Government of Assam, it had projected that by the Order dated 08.02.2017, direction was made to re-visit the matter of compensation in terms of the Letter dated 16.07.2011. 27. Assailing the legality of the process undertaken by the respondent no. 4 for assessment of compensation under the 2013 Act, the petitioner [OIL] had preferred a writ petition, W.P.[C] no. 7797/2017. The Court while issuing notice on 15.12.2017, passed an interim order staying the operation of the Order / Letter dated 15.09.2017 of the respondent no. 4, till the returnable date. On 19.04.2018, on expression of difficulties faced by M/s Nandlall & Sons Tea Industries Pvt. Ltd. [the respondent no. 5 herein] in clearing its provident fund Page No.# 16 of 42 liabilities, the Court directed the petitioner [OIL] to deposit an amount of Rs. 1.50 Crore in the account of Assam Tea Employees Provident Fund Organization within a period of one month. The amount of Rs. 1.50 Crore, as directed, was deposited accordingly by the petitioner [OIL] on 18.05.2018. 28. The writ petition, W.P.[C] no. 7797/2017 came to be disposed of by a Judgment and Order dated 02.03.2023. The Court took notice of the distinction made in two parts by the Division Bench - the first part being the stage prior to issuing the Notification under Section 4 of the 1894 Act; and the other part being the period subsequent to the issuance of Notification under Section 4 of the 1894 Act; and their determination independently. The Court also perused the records produced by the learned State Counsel. Upon perusal of the records, the Court observed that except an Order dated 03.05.2011, there was nothing in the case record in the nature of an award under Section 11 of the 1894 Act. The Order dated 03.05.2011 fixing the rate of Rs. 10,07,872/- per Bigha was held to be not an award under Section 11 of the 1894 Act. 28.1. The relevant excerpts of the Judgment and Order dated 02.03.2023 are quoted hereinbelow :- 12. A perusal of the records does not make it discernible that there exists any award under Section 11 of the Act of 1894 which was made prior to five years of the date of the Act of 2013 coming into force, although a confusion may remain whether there is any such award in existence, but atleast no award is discernible which may have been made prior to five years of the date of the Act of 2013 coming into force, which came into force 01.01.2014. As no award is available on record that may have been made prior to five years of the date of the Act of 2013 coming into force, we are in agreement with the submission of the learned senior counsel Mr. XXX that the provisions of Section 24 [2] of the Act of 2013 would be inapplicable in the present case. As the provisions of Section 24[2] of the Act of 2013 would be inapplicable, the Page No.# 17 of 42 conclusion arrived at by the Deputy Commissioner, Tinsukia in its Order dated 21.05.2017 would be unsustainable in law whereby a conclusion is arrived that in view of the provision of Section 24[2] of the Act of 2013, the earlier proceeding under Section 11 of the Act of 1894 had lapsed in the meantime. But a further issue would remain whether there is any award made by the Deputy Commissioner at all in the aforesaid proceedings. 13. If the Deputy Commissioner upon perusal of his own records can find out whether there exists an award which may have been made under Section 11 of the Act of 1894, the provisions of Section 24[1][b] of the Act of 2013 would be applicable and in such case, whatever award is available on record, the same has to be brought to its logical end, meaning thereby, that the beneficiaries of the land would have to make the payment of the compensation to the land owners. If, on the other hand, no award can be found out by the Deputy Commissioner, Tinsukia from the records which may have been made under Section 11 of the Act of 1894, the provisions of Section 24[1][a] would be made applicable, meaning thereby, that the provisions of the Act of 2013 would be applicable in respect of the compensation that is to be made to the land owner namely, Nandalal & Sons Tea Industries Private Ltd. 14. Accordingly, we direct the Deputy Commissioner, Tinsukia to look into the records and arrive at its own fair conclusion. In the event, an award under Section 11 of the Act of 1894 exists, the implication thereof be followed so that the land owner receives the appropriate compensation for the land that had been acquired, and if on the other hand, the Deputy Commissioner, Tinsukia arrives at his conclusion that no award had been made under Section 11 of the Act of 1894, the provisions of Section 24[1][a] be made applicable and the process be brought to its logical end. Page No.# 18 of 42 15. […] But nevertheless, to arrive at the conclusion whether there exists any award or not, a reasoned order be passed within a period of one month of the receipt of the certified copy of this order and thereupon bring the process to its logical end within a period of another two months. 16. As regards the compensation to the land owner, for the period prior to the issuance of the Section 4 notification, the Deputy Commissioner is directed to expedite the process and make a determination and pass a separate reasoned order within the period of three months as indicated above from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order. 29. After the Judgment and Order dated 02.03.2023, the respondent no. 4 in deference to the direction to pass a reasoned order, passed an Order on 13.04.2023. The relevant excerpts of the Order dated 13.04.2023 are quoted hereinbelow :- O R D E R * * * * * * * * * […] it is seen that the then Deputy Commissioner, Tinsukia vide letter dated 16.07.2011 fixed the value of land and asked the OIL authorities to deposit the value of compensation. Before issuing the letter dated 16.07.2011, Govt. approval should have been taken as enjoined in the provision of Section 11 of LA Act, 1894. It is evident that the proceedings of LA Act, 1894 has not been completed and disposed till date. Any amount of compensation has not been paid in respect of the said proceedings to the land owners except Rs 1.5 crores deposited in the provident fund account of Assam Tea Employees Provident Fund Organization as per the order dated 19.04.2018 passed by Hon'ble Gauhati High Court in W.P.[C] no. 7797/2017. Page No.# 19 of 42 * * * * * * * * * Whereas, the proceedings in LA Case no. 192/11 and 193/11 are not disposed, neither any payment as ordered by Deputy Commissioner, Tinsukia has been deposited in the account of the land owners, as such the Land Acquisition proceedings deemed to be lapsed as per the provisions of section 24 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. In view of the above, it is decided upon that there were no awards passed in LA case no. 192/2011 and 193/2011 as per Section 11 of LA act 1894. Further, the LA case no.192/2011 and 193/2011 will be proceeded as per the provision of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 to determine the compensation. Proposal to be prepared accordingly for onward submission to the Revenue and Disaster Management Department, Dispur, Assam. 30. By observing that the land acquisition proceedings would proceed in accordance with the 2013 Act, thereby, indicating clearly that Section 24[1][a] would be applicable, the respondent no. 4 prepared revised awards under Section 30 of the 2013 Act and on 27.05.2023, the petitioner [OIL] was informed regarding the awards amounting to Rs. 20,89,67,500/- and Rs. 1,32,05,294/- respectively in respect of L.A. Case no. 192/2011 and L.A. Case no. 193/2011, that is, for a total amount of Rs. 22,21,72,794/-, which would be payable to the affected land- owner, that is, the respondent no. 5. 31. In the above backdrop, the petitioner [OIL] has preferred the present writ petition seeking the following reliefs :- Page No.# 20 of 42 1. To issue a writ in the nature of Certiorari, setting aside and quashing the impugned Order dated 13.04.2023 bearing Memo no. TRQ.1/95-2005/PT.II/222 issued by the Deputy Commissioner, Tinsukia, whereby, it was ordered that further proceeding in the L.A. Case no. 192 and 193 of 2011 should be carried out as per provision of the new Act i.e. the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 and to calculate the amount of land compensation accordingly; 2. To issue a writ in the nature of Certiorari, setting aside and quashing the impugned Letter dated 27.05.2023 bearing Memo no. TRQ.1/95- 2005/PT-II/235 issued by the Collector, Tinsukia, submitting the impugned revised award estimate prepared under the new L.A. Act, 2013 of Rs. 22,21,72,794/- in both L.A. Case no. 192 of 2011 and L.A. Case no. 193 of 2011 payable to the affected landowner; 3. To issue a writ in the nature of Mandamus, declaring the existence of an award in terms with Section 11 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 with regard to the L.A. Case no. 192 of 2011 and L.A. Case no. 193 of 2011; 4. To issue a writ in the nature of Mandamus, directing the respondent authorities to allow the petitioner to tender the awarded land compensation as per the Land Acquisition Act, 1894; and/or, pass such further order/orders as your Lordship may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case. 32. I have heard Mr. M.K. Choudhury, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. K. Kalita, learned counsel for the petitioner; Mr. J. Handique, learned Standing Counsel, Revenue & Disaster Management Department, Government of Assam for the respondent nos. 1 – 3; Mr. D. Nath, learned Senior Government Advocate, Assam for the respondent no. 4; and Ms. G. Goswami, learned counsel for the respondent no. 5. Page No.# 21 of 42 33. Mr. Choudhury, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that the Deputy Commissioner prepared land acquisition estimate proposals on 07.05.2011 for L.A. Case no. 192/2011 and L.A. Case no. 193/2011 and forwarded them to the State Government. The State Government had, in turn, approved the land acquisition estimate amounts of Rs. 5,90,94,812/- for L.A. Case no. 192/2011 on 29.10.2011 and Rs. 39,26,405/- for L.A. Case no. 193/2011 on 13.10.2011. Thereafter, the Deputy Commissioner, by Letter dated 17.11.2011 and Letter dated 22.12.2011, wrote to the petitioner [OIL] to deposit the two amounts. By referring to such facts, Mr. Choudhury has contended that there were awards under Section 11 of the 1894 Act and those were valid and operative. He has submitted that the observations recorded by the Deputy Commissioner on the Order dated 13.04.2023 were perverse and arbitrary. 33.1. The learned Senior counsel has submitted that in addition to the amount of Rs. 1.50 Crore deposited earlier, the petitioner [OIL] deposited a further sum of Rs. 9.00 Crore pursuant to an interim Order dated 16.06.2023 passed in the present petition. According to him, the respondent no. 5 had already received a part of the amount of Rs. 1.50 crore in the provident fund account as per this Court’s Order dated 19.04.2018 passed in W.P.[C] no. 7797/2017. Meaning thereby, the respondent no. 5 had already received more than the awards. As a total amount of Rs. 10.50 Crore had already been deposited by the petitioner [OIL] against the awards, there cannot be any process for assessment of compensation under Section 24[1][a] of the 2013 Act, and therefore, the impugned Order dated 13.04.2023 is unsustainable in law. 33.2. It is further contended by him that the Collector had acted mechanically to hold that no awards existed and the same was in total ignorance of the previous Letter dated 07.05.2011 whereby proposals for land acquisition estimates were forwarded, which received Government approvals on 13.10.2011 and 29.10.2011 respectively. By the Collector’s Letter dated 17.11.2011, the petitioner [OIL] was directed to deposit the awarded amounts for both the land acquisition cases. Page No.# 22 of 42 33.3. It is further submitted that after a challenge made to the Letter dated 16.07.2011 in W.P.[C] no. 5372/2013, the Court had directed the Deputy Commissioner to revisit the matter of compensation. This Court had already clarified in its Judgment and Order dated 02.03.2023 that the relevant provisions of the 2013 Act would be applicable if there was no existence of any award. As there were already awards under Section 11 of the 1894 Act, therefore, the provisions of the 2013 Act would be applicable only prospectively. In view of such obtaining fact situation, the petitioner [OIL] is entitled to the reliefs sought for in this writ petition. 33.4. Mr. Choudhury has referred to the decision of the Constitution Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Indore Development Authority vs. Manoharlal and others etc., [2020] 8 SCC 129, to buttress his submissions. He has also referred to the decisions in Delhi Development Authority vs. Damini Wadhwa and others, [2022] 10 SCC 519; Assam Industrial Development Corporation Limited vs. Gillapukri Tea Company Limited and others, [2021] 3 SCC 388; and Delhi Development Authority vs. Jagan Singh and others, [2024] 20 SCC 609. 33.5. By referring to the afore-cited authorities, it has been submitted that the proceedings under the 1894 Act could not have been held to have lapsed. He has highlighted that the petitioner [OIL] has been in possession of the subject- land since 27.11.2000 after the subject-land was handed over to it. As the aspect of the petitioner [OIL]’s possession of the subject-land and deposit of Rs. 10.50 Crores are not in dispute, there is no question of applicability of Section 24[1][a] of the 2013 Act in the present case. 34. The stand of the Collector/Deputy Commissioner, Tinsukia [the respondent no. 4] has been brought in an affidavit filed on 29.08.2024 and Mr. Nath has submitted in similar lines. The respondent no. 4 has stated that records of L.A. Case no. 192/2011 as well as L.A. Case no. 193/2011 were thoroughly scrutinized and it did not reveal existence of any award made on or before 31.12.2013 or on or after 01.04.2014 under Section 11 of the 1894 Act. It is Page No.# 23 of 42 stated that Notifications under Section 4 of the 1894 Act were issued on 20.05.2011 and were published in the Assam Gazette on 08.08.2011. Declarations under Section 6 of the 1894 Act were issued on 16.09.2011 and 17.09.2011 respectively and were published in the Assam Gazette on 20.09.2011. 34.1. It is further mentioned that when after fixation of gross value of the subject-plot @ Rs. 10,07,827/- per Bigha, the petitioner [OIL] was requested to deposit the amounts of Rs. 5,90,94,812/- in connection with L.A. Case no. 192/2011 and Rs. 39,26,405/- in connection with L.A. Case no. 193/2011 by the Office Letter dated 07.05.2011, no deposit was made by the petitioner [OIL]. Instead, the subsequent Office Letter dated 16.07.2011 was challenged in W.P.[C] no. 5372/2013. When by the Order dated 08.02.2017, direction was made to revisit the provisions of the Letter dated 16.07.2011 for arriving at a proper and due compensation, the matter was duly examined and it was observed that the proceedings drawn under the 1894 Act had lapsed for applicability of the provisions of Section 24 [1][b] as well as Section 24[2] of the 2013 Act and accordingly, it was decided that further proceedings would be carried out as per the provisions of Section 24 [1][a] of the 2013 Act and calculation would have to be made accordingly. The revised estimates were accordingly forwarded to the Government for approval. But, the same were returned with the instruction to submit the same through the petitioner [OIL] it being the requiring body. Accordingly on 15.09.2017, the same were forwarded to the petitioner [OIL]. The petitioner [OIL] obtained an interim stay on the Office Letter dated 15.09.2017 on 15.12.2017 in the writ petition, W.P.[C] no. 7797/2017, preferred by it. 34.2. When the writ petition was finally disposed of on 02.03.2023 with certain observations and directions, the Deputy Commissioner had once again gone through the records of L.A. Case no. 192/2011 and L.A. Case no. 193/2011 and came to a conclusion that there were no awards made under Section 11 of the 1894 Act in the said two cases and it was again decided to proceed as per the provisions of 2013 Act. Accordingly, the Order dated 13.04.2023 was passed and Page No.# 24 of 42 steps were taken for preparation of award proposals. Thereafter, revised awards were prepared as per the provisions of 2013 Act amounting to Rs. 20,89,67,500/- for L.A. Case no. 192/2011 and Rs. 1,32,05,294/- for L.A. Case no. 193/2011. By Office Letter dated 27.05.2023, those revised awards were submitted to the petitioner [OIL] for necessary action. It is mentioned that by a Notification dated 07.04.2022, the State Government has delegated the powers to the District Collector to act as the Appropriate Government in their respective territorial jurisdiction and therefore, the revised awards are to be considered as approved by the State Government. It is stated that after carrying out all the required exercise in compliance of the Judgment and Order dated 02.03.2023, the Order dated 31.04.2023 has been passed. 34.3. Apart from the deposit of Rs. 1.50 Crores by the petitioner [OIL] in terms of the direction made in the Order dated 19.04.2018 passed in W.P.[C] no. 7797/2017, the petitioner [OIL] deposited the said amount. Thereafter, the petitioner [OIL] deposited another amount of Rs. 9.00 Crores pursuant to an Order dated 16.06.2023 passed in the present writ petition at an interim stage and after the deposit, the amount was released in favour of the respondent no. 5 on 24.08.2023. 35. Ms. Goswami, learned counsel appearing for the respondent no. 5, that is, the land owner has made submissions in support of the impugned Order dated 13.04.2023 and the revised awards submitted on 27.05.2023. While supporting the stand of the State respondents, Ms. Goswami has submitted that as the pre- conditions laid down in the provisions of the 1894 Act were not present, the submission advanced on behalf of the petitioner as regards existence of an award is misconceived. Similarly, the submission advanced on behalf of the petitioner as regards fulfilment of the conditions of possession and deposit is also misconceived. The issue has already been addressed in the Judgment and Order dated 02.03.2023 and the petitioner [OIL] had also accepted the said position. Therefore, the only issue which remained for examination was whether the process was required to be carried forward in terms of Section 24 [1][a] or in terms of Section 24 [2][b] of the 2013 Act. Page No.# 25 of 42 35.1. Elaborating further, Ms. Goswami has submitted that prior to the Notification dated 07.04.2022 of the Revenue & Disaster Management Department, Government of Assam, the situation was different in that the jurisdictional District Collector was required to obtain approval from the State Government for the approval under the 1894 Act and also, under the 2013 Act and, therefore, only an award made with the approval of the State Government can be termed as final award. As per the provisions of the Assam Land Acquisition Manual, which was recognized in the case of Gillapukri Tea Company Limited [supra], the preliminary estimate was to be submitted by the Collector in the prescribed format, Form-5 whereas the award was to be submitted by the Collector in Form-15. The respondent no. 4 on 07.05.2011 forwarded preliminary estimates to the State Government in Form-5 only and there was no submission of awards in Form-15. Therefore, the State Government had accorded approval to the preliminary estimates submitted in Form-5 only and there was no approval to the awards in Form-15. Therefore, it cannot be contended by the petitioner that there was existence of an award as per Section 11 of the 1894 Act. 35.2. It is further contended that the awards prepared and submitted by the respondent no. 4 on 15.09.2017 and 19.09.2017 in Form-X in terms of Rule 36 of the Assam Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Re-Settlement Rules, 2015 [‘the Assam RFCTLARR Rules’, for short] was not final. As the petitioner [OIL] as the requiring body who was to express opinion on the market value, objected to it and due to the amount involved, the award required prior approval of the State Government before declaration. As the award in Form-X did not receive approval of the State Government, the award was not final. 36. I have given due consideration to the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and I have also gone through the materials brought on record by the parties through their pleadings. Page No.# 26 of 42 37. By stressing on the possession of the petitioner [OIL] on the subject-land since 27.11.2000 and the deposit of Rs. 10.50 Crores made during the process, the prime ground urged on behalf of the petitioner [OIL] in the present case is that in view of the interpretation given to the provisions of Section 24 of the 2013 Act in Indore Development Authority [supra], the present case could not have proceeded under Section 24[1][a] of the 2013 Act. It is the case of the petitioner [OIL] that it had legal possession of the subject-land, there were awards made under Section 11 of the 1894 Act and it had paid a sum of Rs. 10.50 Crores to the land owner towards compensation. Even if it is assumed that compensation has not been paid, then also, the legal possession of the subject-land is not in dispute. In case possession has been taken with the awards made and even if compensation has not been paid, then there is no lapse of the land acquisition proceedings by virtue of Section 24[1][b] and Section 24 [2] of the 2013 Act. 38. Therefore, it is appropriate to quote Section 24 of the 2013 Act for ready reference. Section 24 reads as under :- 24. Land acquisition process under Act No. 1 of 1894 shall be deemed to have lapsed in certain cases.– [1] Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, in any case of land acquisition proceedings initiated under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894,— [a] where no award under Section 11 of the said Land Acquisition Act has been made, then, all provisions of this Act relating to the determination of compensation shall apply; or [b] where an award under said Section 11 has been made, then such proceedings shall continue under the provisions of the said Land Acquisition Act, as if the said Act has not been repealed. [2] Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section [1], in case of land acquisition proceedings initiated under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 [1 of 1894], where an award under the said Section 11 has been made five years or more prior to the commencement of this Act but the physical Page No.# 27 of 42 possession of the land has not been taken or the compensation has not been paid the said proceedings shall be deemed to have lapsed and the appropriate Government, if it so chooses, shall initiate the proceedings of such land acquisition afresh in accordance with the provisions of this Act : Provided that where an award has been made and compensation in respect of a majority of land holdings has not been deposited in the account of the beneficiaries, then, all beneficiaries specified in the notification for acquisition under Section 4 of the said Land Acquisition Act, shall be entitled to compensation in accordance with the provisions of this Act. 39. 39. Section 24 [1][a] of the RFCTLARR/2013 Act, with the non-obstante clause, has laid down that in case of land acquisition proceedings initiated under the LA/1894 Act no award was made under Section 11 of the 1894 Act, then all the provisions of the 2013 Act relating to the determination of compensation would apply. Section 24 [1][b] of the 2013 Act has prescribed that in case of any land acquisition proceedings initiated under the 1894 Act, where an award under Section 11 of the 1894 Act has been made, then such land acquisition proceedings would continue under the provisions of the 1894 Act, as if the 1894 Act has not been repealed. Section 24 [1][b] has, thus, contemplated that such pending land acquisition proceedings, as on the date on which the 2013 Act came into force, would continue and would have to be taken to their logical end. 40. Section 24 of the 2013 Act, more particularly, sub-section [2] thereof, has come up for consideration and interpretation before a Constitution Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Indore Development Authority [supra]. The Constitution Bench has observed that an exception to Section 24 [1][b] of the 2013 Act has been provided in Section 24 [2] in case of pending proceedings : in case where the award has been made five years or more prior to the commencement of the 2013 Act, the physical possession of the land has not been taken, or the compensation has not been paid, the proceeding shall be Page No.# 28 of 42 deemed to have lapsed, and such proceedings cannot continue as per the provisions of 24 [1][b] of the 2013 Act. There are twin requirements : firstly, physical possession has not been taken and, secondly, compensation has not been paid. The question that has been posed by the Constitution Bench to answer is whether the conditions are cumulative i.e. both are to be fulfilled, for lapsing of acquisition proceedings, or the conditions are in the alternative [‘either / or’]. 41. To answer, the following questions from the provisions of Section 24 [2] of the RFCTLARR/2013 Act came up for interpretation :- 5.1. [i] Whether the word ‘or’ in Section 24 [2] of the 2013 Act used in between possession has not been taken or compensation has not been paid to be read as ‘and’? 5.2. [ii] Whether the proviso to Section 24 [2] of the 2013 Act has to be construed as part thereof or the proviso to Section 24 [1][b]? 5.3. [iii] What meaning is to be given to the word ‘paid’ used in Section 24[2] and ‘deposited’ used in the proviso to Section 24 [2]? 5.4. [iv] What are the consequences of payment not made? 5.5. [v] What are the consequences of the amount not deposited? 5.6. [vi] What is the effect of a person refusing to accept the compensation? 41.1. The Constitution Bench has answered the questions, which are quoted hereunder :- 366.1. Under the provisions of Section 24[1][a] in case the award is not made as on 1.1.2014, the date of commencement of the 2013 Act, there is no lapse of proceedings. Compensation has to be determined under the provisions of the 2013 Act. 366.2. In case the award has been passed within the window period of five years excluding the period covered by an interim order of the court, Page No.# 29 of 42 then proceedings shall continue as provided under Section 24[1][b] of the 2013 Act under the 1894 Act as if it has not been repealed. 366.3. The word ‘or’ used in Section 24[2] between possession and compensation has to be read as ‘nor’ or as ‘and’. The deemed lapse of land acquisition proceedings under Section 24[2] of the 2013 Act takes place where due to inaction of authorities for five years or more prior to commencement of the said Act, the possession of land has not been taken nor compensation has been paid. In other words, in case possession has been taken, compensation has not been paid then there is no lapse. Similarly, if compensation has been paid, possession has not been taken then there is no lapse. 366.4. The expression 'paid' in the main part of Section 24[2] of the 2013 Act does not include a deposit of compensation in court. The consequence of non-deposit is provided in the proviso to Section 24[2] in case it has not been deposited with respect to majority of landholdings then all beneficiaries [landowners] as on the date of notification for land acquisition under Section 4 of the 1894 Act shall be entitled to compensation in accordance with the provisions of the 2013 Act. In case the obligation under Section 31 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 has not been fulfilled, interest under Section 34 of the said Act can be granted. Non-deposit of compensation [in court] does not result in the lapse of land acquisition proceedings. In case of non-deposit with respect to the majority of holdings for five years or more, compensation under the 2013 Act has to be paid to the ‘landowners’ as on the date of notification for land acquisition under Section 4 of the 1894 Act. 366.5. In case a person has been tendered the compensation as provided under Section 31[1] of the 1894 Act, it is not open to him to claim that acquisition has lapsed under Section 24[2] due to non-payment or non- deposit of compensation in court. The obligation to pay is complete by tendering the amount under Section 31[1]. The landowners who had refused to accept compensation or who sought reference for higher Page No.# 30 of 42 compensation, cannot claim that the acquisition proceedings had lapsed under Section 24[2] of the 2013 Act. 366.6. The proviso to Section 24[2] of the 2013 Act is to be treated as part of Section 24[2], not part of Section 24[1][b]. 366.7. The mode of taking possession under the 1894 Act and as contemplated under Section 24[2] is by drawing of inquest report/ memorandum. Once award has been passed on taking possession under Section 16 of the 1894 Act, the land vests in State there is no divesting provided under Section 24[2] of the 2013 Act, as once possession has been taken there is no lapse under Section 24[2]. 366.8. The provisions of Section 24[2] providing for a deemed lapse of proceedings are applicable in case authorities have failed due to their inaction to take possession and pay compensation for five years or more before the 2013 Act came into force, in a proceeding for land acquisition pending with the authority concerned as on 1.1.2014. The period of subsistence of interim orders passed by court has to be excluded in the computation of five years. 366.9. Section 24[2] of the 2013 Act does not give rise to new cause of action to question the legality of concluded proceedings of land acquisition. Section 24 applies to a proceeding pending on the date of enforcement of the 2013 Act, i.e., 1.1.2014. It does not revive stale and time-barred claims and does not reopen concluded proceedings nor allow landowners to question the legality of mode of taking possession to reopen proceedings or mode of deposit of compensation in the treasury instead of court to invalidate acquisition. 42. The first issue for consideration is whether the present case comes under the provisions of Section 24[2] of the 2013 Act of the proviso thereof. To make the provisions of sub-section [2] of Section 24 of the 2013 Act applicable, the foremost requirements are two :- firstly, there had to be an award under Section 11 of the 1894 Act; and secondly, such award had to be made five years or more Page No.# 31 of 42 prior to the commencement of the 2013 Act. It is only when the above pre- conditions are fulfilled, the questions regarding possession of the land and payment of compensation can be gone into. 43. The 2013 Act came into force on and from 01.01.2014. The land acquisition proceedings of L.A. Case no. 192/2011 and L.A. Case no. 193/2011 under the provisions of the 1894 Act can be said to have commenced only on publication of the two Notifications, dated 20.05.2011, issued under Section 4 of the 1897 Act in the Assam Gazette on 20.09.2011. To bring the provisions of Section 24 [2] of the 2013 Act into action, the award under Section 11 of the 1894 Act in the concerned land acquisition proceeding was required to have been passed on or before 01.01.2009, that is, five years prior to 01.01.2014. As the land acquisition proceedings in L.A. Case no. 192/2011 and L.A. Case no. 193/2011 commenced only in the year 2011, there is no question of applicability of Section 24 [2] of the 2013 Act in the present case as no award under Section 11 of the 1894 Act was possible before 01.01.2009. 44. The award under Section 11 of the 1894 Act in Damini Wadhwa [supra] was declared by the Collector on 17.06.1987. Physical possession of a substantial portion of the acquired land was taken over thereafter. Possession of some parcels of land could not be taken over because of the pending litigations and even the compensation could not be deposited due to pending litigations. In Jagan Singh [supra], the award under Section 11 of the 1894 Act was made on 18.06.1992 and the physical possession of the acquired land was taken over on 19.01.2006. It was in those facts and circumstances, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that the concerned land acquisition proceedings did not lapse in view of Section 24 [2] of the 2013 Act and the interpretation given by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Indore Development Authority [supra]. 44.1. In the fact situation obtaining in the present case, the above two decisions are not found applicable, as no award under Section 11 of the 1894 Act was possible on or before 01.01.2009 in view of commencement of the land acquisition proceedings only in the year 2011. In view of non-fulfillment of the conditions Page No.# 32 of 42 precedent for passing of an award under Section 11 of the 1894 Act, due to impossibility, the two conditions subsequent i.e. possession and payment do not have any significance at all to make the provisions of Section 24[2] of the 2013 Act operational. 45. It is also not open for the petitioner [OIL] to contend regarding non-lapse of the acquisition proceeding in terms of Section 24 [2] of the 2013 Act in view of the common Judgment and Order dated 24.03.2023. The petitioner [OIL] was the writ petitioner in the writ petition, W.P.[C] no. 7797/2017, which was disposed of by the said common Judgment and Order. It was pointed out by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner [OIL] therein that as per the records, no such award was available which might have been made prior to five years of the date on which the 2013 Act had come into force. The Court observed that a perusal of the record did not make it discernible that there existed any award under Section 11 of the 1894 Act which was made prior to five years of the date the 2013 Act came into force. The Court observed that no award was discernible which might have been made prior to five years of the date, 01.01.2014 when the 2013 Act came into force. As no award was available on record that might have been made prior to five years from 01.01.2014, the Court was in agreement with the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner [OIL] that the provisions of Section 24 [2] of the 2013 Act would be inapplicable in the case. As the proviso to Section 24[2] is to be treated as part of Section 24[2] only and not to Section 24[1][b], existence of an award prior to 01.01.2014 was mandatory. In the absence of any such award, the aspects of possession and deposit do not have any relevance for the purpose of Section 24 [2] as well as of the proviso to Section 24 [2] of the 2013 Act. 46. The petitioner [OIL] to urge its case has claimed to have legal possession of the subject-land. As mentioned above, the petitioner [OIL] took over physical possession of the subject-land with the right to use on 27.11.2000, pursuant to the Order dated 17.11.2000 and the Corrigendum dated 21.11.2000 passed by the respondent no. 4 in exercise of the powers vested in him under Rule 190 r/w Rule 189 of the Rules framed under Section 155[f] of the Regulation, 1886. It is Page No.# 33 of 42 required to find out about the nature of possession associated with the right to use. 47. Rule 155[f] of the Regulation, 1886 has empowered the State Governments to make rules inter-alia for granting of licences of oil-wells and for payment of consideration and the conditions on which such licences may be granted. In exercise of the above powers, the State Government has framed a set of rules, ‘Rules framed under Section 155[f] regulating the entry by mining licensees on settled land’. Rule 189 has inter alia empowered the Deputy Commissioner to permit entry upon such land when the surface of such land is covered by a prospecting licence or a petroleum exploration licence to the licensee, if such land is in occupation of any person other than the licensee. Rule 189 has also provided a power to the Deputy Commissioner to assess any damage or injury which may be done by the licensee to the property of the occupier of the land or of any other person and to direct the licensee to make deposit of an amount for making payment to such occupier or other person. Rule 190 has empowered the Deputy Commissioner to grant authority to a mining lessee to enter any land when the surface of such land is covered by a mining lease and when such land is in occupation of any person other than the lessee. With the grant of written authority under Rule 190, the lessee can enter upon such land for carrying out the conditions of the mining lease. Rule 190 has also provided for assessment of any damage or injury which may be done by the lessee to the property of the occupier of such land or of any other person and also the authority to make a direction to the lessee to pay the amount so assessed. The issue which is necessary to find out whether this kind of possession can be equated with the possession envisaged in the 1894 Act. 48. The other bone of contention among the parties also revolves around the issue of applicability of the provisions of Section 24[1][b] of the 2013 Act. The said issue is also dependent on the existence of an award under Section 11 of the 1894 Act. For the said purpose, a survey of few provisions of the 1894 Act would be necessary to find out as to when an award under Section 11 of the said Act Page No.# 34 of 42 can be said to have been made and when the possession of the acquired land can be taken over. 49. As per definition clause in Section 3 [ee] of the LA/1894 Act, the expression ‘Appropriate Government’ inter alia meant in relation to acquisition of land, the State Government. This part of definition of ‘Appropriate Government’ is applicable in the present case. Section 4 provided that whenever it appeared to the Appropriate Government that any land in any locality was needed or was likely to be needed for any purpose or for a company, a notification to that effect was to be published in the Official Gazette and through other modes including in two daily newspapers, as laid down therein. When the Appropriate Government was satisfied, subject to compliance of other requisite formalities, that any particular land was needed for a public purpose, or for a company, a declaration under Section 6 was required to be made by the Secretary to such Government or by an officer duly authorized to certify the order of the Appropriate Government. It was also mandatory to publish the declaration under Section 6 in the Official Gazette and in two daily newspapers. By Section 7, it was prescribed that after the declaration, the Appropriate Government shall direct the Collector to take order for acquisition of the land. It was mandatory under Section 9 to serve notices upon the persons interested. 50. It was laid down in Section 11 [1] of the 1894 Act that the Collector would enquire into the objections, if any, submitted by any person interested pursuant to a notice given under Section 9 and shall make an award under his hand inter alia of the true area of the land, and the compensation which in his opinion should be allowed for the land. A mandatory prescription was contained to the effect that no award shall be made by the Collector under Section 11 [1] without the previous approval of the Appropriate Government or of such officer as the Appropriate Government had authorized in that behalf. 51. It was laid down in Section 12 [1] of the 1894 Act that such award shall be filed in the Collector’s office and shall, except as thereafter provided, be final and conclusive evidence, as between the Collector and the persons interested, Page No.# 35 of 42 whether they had respectively appeared before the Collector or not, of the true area and value of the land. The Collector was required to give notice of his award to such of the interested persons as mentioned in Section 12 [2]. After the Collector had made an award under Section 11, he was authorized by Section 16 to take possession of the land, which shall thereupon vest absolutely in the Government, free from all encumbrances. 52. It is clear from the prescription contained in Section 16 of the 1894 Act that the land vest in the Government absolutely when possession is taken after the award is made. Once an award is made and possession is taken, by virtue of Section 16 land vests absolutely in the State, free from all encumbrances. Vesting of land is automatic on the happening of the two exigencies of passing award and taking possession, as prescribed in Section 16. Once possession is taken under Section 16 of the 1894 Act, the owner of the land loses title to it and the Government becomes the absolute owner of the land. 53. In the considered view of the Court, the meaning of ‘possession’ which is contemplated by Section 24[2] of the 2013 Act is possession after an award was made under Section 11 of the 1894 Act. It is only after the Collector had made an award under Section 11 of the 1894 Act, he could have assumed the power to take possession of the land under Section 16 of the 1894 Act, which shall thereupon vest in the Government, free from all encumbrances. Only when the land had vested in the Government, it was possible to hand over possession of the acquired land to the requiring body. By the Order dated 17.11.2000 and the Corrigendum dated 21.11.2000, passed under Rule 190 r/w Rule 189 of the Rules framed under Section 155[f] of the Regulation of 1886, the petitioner [OIL] had got the Right of User only and by virtue of that right, it took cover physical possession of the subject-land on 27.11.2000. But all throughout the period since 27.11.2000, the ownership of the subject-land remained with the land owner i.e. the respondent no. 5. In case of absence of any award under Section 11 of the 1894 Act, the subject-land could not have been vested in the State Government to hand over the possession of the subject-land to the petitioner [OIL] in the manner as envisaged by the 1894 Act. Page No.# 36 of 42 54. The plea regarding existence of an award on the basis of the preliminary cost estimates submitted by the respondent no. 4 in Form-5, which also received Government approval on 13.10.2011 and 29.10.2011, is erroneous on the ground, as evident from the Letter dated 16.07.2011, that it included an amount towards rent for use of the subject-land for about twelve years to arrive at the rate of Rs. 10,07,872/- per Bigha to arrive, in turn, at the amounts of Rs. 5,90,94,812/- and Rs. 39,26,405/- respectively. Such inclusion of rent is clearly not in congruity with the direction made in the Judgment and Order dated 05.04.2011 [supra] to keep the issue of determination and payment of compensation to the land owner prior to the commencement of land acquisition proceeding under the 1894 Act independent. 55. As per Paragraph 24 [c] of the Assam Land Acquisition Manual [‘the Acquisition Manual’, for short], the Collector was required to submit the preliminary estimate of cost of acquisition prepared for the land to be acquired in Form-5. Paragraph 64 of the Acquisition Manual contained a condition that no award shall be made unless an estimate had been duly prepared and sanctioned. As per Paragraph 65 of the Acquisition Manual, the form prescribed for award was Form-15, which should be written out, signed and dated before any payment was made. From the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Gillapukari Tea Company Limited [supra], it clearly emerges that the jurisdictional Collector was required to seek prior approval in respect of both of the land acquisition estimate and the award in prescribed Form-5 and Form-15 respectively. It was observed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that the format of Form-15 was the statutorily prescribed form for a land acquisition Award under the Acquisition Manual. Finding that the State Government accorded approval to the land acquisition estimate submitted in Form-5 and also to the award submitted in Form-15 on 05.03.2010, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Gillapukari Tea Company has held that the award stood approved. The Hon’ble Court has held that once the award was approved, compensation was paid thereunder and possession of the land was handed over to the Government, acquisition proceedings could not have been opened and there was no question of lapsing under Section 24 of the 2013 Act. Page No.# 37 of 42 56. Reverting back to the facts of the case in hand, it is found that on 13.10.2011 and 29.10.2011, the State Government accorded approval to the preliminary estimates submitted by the respondent no. 4 in statutorily prescribed Form-5 of the Acquisition Manual towards probable cost of acquiring the 2nd parcel of land involved in L.A. Case no. 193/2011 at Rs. 39,26,405/- and the 1st parcel of land involved in L.A. Case no. 192/2011 at Rs. 5,90,94,812/-. It is the case of the State respondents including the respondent no. 4, and the respondent no. 5 that there was no submission of any award by the respondent no. 4 in the statutorily prescribed Form-15 at any point of time and consequently, there was no approval of the State Government to any award submitted in Form-15. In the absence of any approval of the State Government to the award submitted in statutory prescribed Form-15, there is no question of an award under Section 11 of the 1894 Act and there is also no question of application of Section 24[1][b] as well as Section 24[2] of the 2013 Act in the present case. It is not the case of the petitioner [OIL] that there was approval of the State Government to any award prepared and submitted by the respondent no. 4 in Form-15 of the Acquisition Manual at any point of time. Therefore, this Court finds itself in agreement with the common stand taken by the State respondents, more particularly, the respondent no. 4 in the impugned Order dated 13.04.2023, and also that of the respondent no. 5 that there were no awards made under Section 11 of the 1894 Act in the year 2011. 57. It was an admitted position on 08.02.2017, the date when the two writ petitions – W.P.[C] no. 5372/2013 & W.P.[C] no. 587/2017 – were disposed of by a common order, that there was no award under Section 11 of the 1894 Act on that date. It was upon agreement of the parties, the writ petitions were disposed of with a direction to the respondent no. 4 to proceed further with the land acquisition proceedings of L.A. Case no. 192/2013 and L.A. Case no. 193/2013 to bring those two proceedings to their logical ends by arriving at a definite determination as regards the compensation required to be paid to the land owner and by revisiting the provisions of the Letter dated 16.11.2011 submitted by the petitioner [OIL]. Thereafter, in the Order dated 21.05.2017, the Page No.# 38 of 42 respondent no. 4 recorded a view that further proceedings of L.A. Case no. 192/2013 and L.A. Case no. 193/2013 would be carried out under the 2013 Act. 58. Thus, the other issue of which requires examination is whether the conditions required not to proceed under Section 24 [1][a] of the 2013 Act exist in the present case or not. For not to proceed in terms of Section 24 [1][b], existence of an award under Section 11 of the 1894 Act is necessary. The respondent no. 4 after going through the entire records, as directed in the Judgment and Order dated 02.03.2023, had recorded a finding in the Order dated 13.04.2023 that at the time of issuing the Letter dated 16.07.2011, there was no prior Government approval. 59. It is pertinent to mention, at the cost of repetition, the prescription contained in Section 24 [1][b] of the 2013 Act is to the effect that in a case of land acquisition proceedings initiated under the 1894 Act, where an award under Section 11 has been made then such proceedings would continue under the provision of the 1894 Act only, as if the 1894 Act has not been repealed. Section 11 of the 1894 Act contained a mandate that no award under Section 11 of the 1894 Act shall be made by the Collector without the previous approval of the State Government or of such officer as the State Government had authorized in that behalf. 60. Land acquisition estimates under Section 23 of the 2013 Act read with Rule 36 [1] of the Assam RFCTLARR Rules were prepared and submitted by the respondent no. 4 in prescribed Form-X on 15.09.2017 and 19.09.2017, to which the petitioner [OIL] objected to it at first, and, later on, preferred the writ petition, W.P.[C] no. 7797/2017. Rule 36 of the Assam RFCTLARR Rules has made it mandatory for the Collector obtain prior approval of the State Government before declaration of the award. With no prior approval accorded to those land acquisition estimates submitted in Form-X, it cannot be held that there was existence of any award. 61. In view of the discussion made above and for the reasons recorded, it is, therefore, evident that the land acquisition proceedings of L.A. Case no. Page No.# 39 of 42 192/2011 and L.A. Case no. 193/2011 are required to be proceeded as per the provisions of Section 24[1][a] of the 2013 Act. In view of failure on the part of the petitioner [OIL] to establish that there was existence of awards in terms of the Section 11 of the 1894 Act with regard to L.A. Case no. 192/2011 and L.A. Case no. 193/2011, no direction in the nature of mandamus declaring existence of such awards can be made. As a natural consequence, the land acquisition proceedings, L.A. Case no. 192/2011 and L.A. Case no. 193/2011 have to be brought to their conclusions by following the provision of Section 24[1][a] of the 2013 Act. Resultantly, the challenge made by the petitioner [OIL] to the Order dated 13.04.2023 is found unmerited. Therefore, the first prayer and the third prayer of the petitioner [OIL] are found to be without any merit. 62. The petitioner [OIL] has also mounted a challenge to the Letter no. TRQ.1/95- 2005/Pt.II/235 dated 27.05.2023. In such view of the matter, it requires an examination about the authority and jurisdiction of the respondent no. 4 for issuance of the Letter dated 27.05.2023. 63. By the Letter dated 27.05.2023, the respondent no. 4 has forwarded revised awards in Form-VII in respect of L.A. Case no. 192/2011 and L.A. Case no. 193/2011 to the petitioner [OIL]. The petitioner [OIL] has been informed that pursuant to the Judgment and Order dated 02.03.2023 and on receipt of Assessment Reports of land from the Circle Officer, Tinsukia Revenue Circle, the revised awards amounting to Rs. 20,89,67,500/- for L.A. Case no. 192/2011 and Rs. 1,32,05,294/- for L.A. Case no. 193/2011 have been made. The petitioner [OIL] has been informed that an amount of Rs. 22,21,72,794/-, in total, is found payable to the affected landowner and the revised awards have been submitted for its necessary action. 64. Sub-section [2] of Section 15 of the 2013 Act has empowered the Collector to prepare a report on the approximate cost of land acquisition for the decision of the Appropriate Government. Rule 24 of the Assam RFCTLARR Rules has provided that the Collector shall prepare an estimate of an approximate cost of land acquisition as required under Section 15[2] of the 2013 Act, on the basis of Page No.# 40 of 42 the components defined in Clause [i] of Section 3 of the said Act, in Form-VII. Section 19[1] of the RFCTLARR/2013 Act r/w Rule 27[1] of the Assam RFCTLARR Rules has prescribed that the State Government upon receipt of such a report, has to issue a declaration in terms of Section 19[4] read with Rule 27[2] in prescribed Form-VIII. As per the Second Proviso to sub-section [2] of Section 19, no such declaration shall be made unless the requiring body deposits an amount in full or part, as may be prescribed by the Appropriate Government towards the cost of acquisition of the land. The Third Provisio to sub-section [2] of Section 19 has provided that the requiring body shall deposit the complete amount so as to enable the Appropriate Government to publish a declaration and such declaration, as per Section 19[6], shall be conclusive evidence that the land is required for a public purpose, and after making such declaration, the Appropriate Government may acquire the land in the manner prescribed under the 2013 Act. 65. The definition of ‘Appropriate Government’ has been provided in Section 3 [e] of the 2013 Act. ‘Appropriate Government’ in relation to acquisition of land situated within the territory of a State, is the State Government. It has been provided that in respect of a public purpose in a District for an area not exceeding such as may be notified by the Appropriate Government, the Collector of such District shall be deemed to be the Appropriate Government. 66. The State Government in the Revenue & Disaster Management Department issued a Notification no. RLA.300/2013/Pt./160 on 07.04.2022, which was published in the Assam Gazette in its Issue no. 287 dated 27.04.2022. The said Notification was issued in exercise of the powers conferred by the proviso to clause [e] of Section 3 of the 2013 Act read with Rule 2 [1][d] of the Assam 2013 Rules and of all other enabling powers in that behalf. By the Notification dated 07.04.2022, the State Government has appointed the District Collectors of the districts, except the Sixth Scheduled areas, as the ‘Appropriate Government’ in relation to acquisition of any extent of land for a public purpose within the jurisdiction of the respective district under the provision of 2013 Act. Page No.# 41 of 42 67. In view of the powers conferred by the Notification dated 07.04.2022, the respondent no. 4 on and from 07.04.2022 has been vested with the authority and jurisdiction to act as the Appropriate Government in respect of the subject- land. In view of such authority and jurisdiction, the respondent no. 4 is not required to obtain any prior approval from the State Government with regard to any award prepared and finalized by him, which stood forwarded to the petitioner [OIL] on 27.05.2023. By virtue of the powers conferred by the Notification dated 07.04.2022, it will be the respondent no. 4 as the Collector who will only issue the declaration, mentioned above, after compliance of the provisions mentioned hereinabove by him as well as the petitioner [OIL] as the requiring body, so as to proceed for acquisition of the subject-land. 68. Section 26 [1] of the 2013 Act has outlined the criteria which the Collector shall adopt in assessing and determining the market value of the land to be acquired. Section 26 [2] has prescribed that the market value calculated as per Section 26 [1] shall be multiplied by a factor specified in the first Schedule. Section 30 has provided for award of Solatium. As per sub-section [1] of Section 30, the Collector having determined the total compensation to be paid, shall, to arrive at the final award, impose a ‘Solatium’ amount equivalent to one hundred percent of the compensation amount. Section 30 [3] requires the Collector to award an amount calculated at the rate of twelve percent per annum on such market value for the period from the date of commencement of the original notification till the date of the award of the Collector or the date of taking possession of the land, whichever is earlier. 69. In the award submitted in Form-VII on 27.05.2023, which is under Section 30 of the 2013 Act, the respondent no. 4 is found to have determined the market value of the land under Section 26[1] of the 2013 Act. To the market value the factor [1.2] has been added under Section 26[2]. In the award, the respondent no. 4 has added the Solatium amount as per Section 30[1] and the interest component as per Section 30[2] of the 2013 Act, apart from other components like administrative cost, etc. It is thereafter, the final award amounts of Rs. 20,89,67,500/- and Rs. 1,32,05,294/- have been determined. Page No.# 42 of 42 70. As no specific challenge has been made by the petitioner [OIL] with regard to the manner of determination of the award amounts by the respondent no. 4 under the provisions of the 2013 Act, other than the authority and jurisdiction of the respondent no. 4 to proceed under Section 24[1][a] of the 2013 Act, a discussion on determination of the award amounts is not necessary. 71. As the respondent no. 4 is found to have the authority and jurisdiction to issue the Letter dated 27.05.2023 along with Form-VII; and the same is found to have been issued following the requisite procedure; this Court finds no merit in the challenge made by the petitioner [OIL] as regards the authority and jurisdiction of the respondent no. 4 to forward such awards in exercise of the powers conferred by the provisions of the 2013 Act; the Assam RFCTLARR Rules and the Notification dated 07.04.2022, as discussed hereinabove. This Court, therefore, does not find any reason to make any interference to the Letter dated 27.05.2023 whereby awards which require no prior previous approval of the State Government, have been submitted by the respondent no. 4 as the jurisdictional Collector to the petitioner [OIL] as the requiring body to make payment of the awarded amounts for the two parcels of land, which the petitioner [OIL] is seeking to acquire for its drilling activities. Consequently, the second prayer is also rejected. 72. In view of the discussion and the observations made, the reasons recorded, and the findings reached at, as above, the present writ petition is found to be devoid of merit and therefore, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. The writ petition is therefore, dismissed. Interim order, if any, passed earlier stands recalled. There shall, however, be no order as to cost. JUDGE Comparing Assistant Digitally signed by Pallabi Das Date: 2026.06.10 00:46:23 +05'30'