Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010121192026 2026:GAU-AS:9217 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) WP(C)/2431/2024 HANDIQUE AND BARUWA ENTERPRISE PVT. LTD. HAVING ITS OFFICE AT HANCHARA GOHAIN GAON SIMALUGURI MOUZA TEOK DIST. JORHAT ASSAM BEING REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR SRI KARANJYOTI HANDIQUE S/O- SR. DHRUBA JYOTI HANDIQUE R/O- KOTHIALHUNDA GAON P.O. AND P.S. SAPEKHATI DIST. SIVASAGAR ASSAM VERSUS THE UNION OF INDIA AND 6 ORS. REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY OF MINISTRY OF ROAD TRANSPORT AND HIGHWAYS NEW DELHI. 2:THE NATIONAL HIGHWAYS AUTHORITY OF INDIA REP. BY ITS CHAIRMAN HAVING ITS HEADQUARTERS AT SECTOR-10 DWARKA NEW DELHI-110075 NEW DELHI. 3:THE NATIONAL HIGHWAYS AUTHORITY OF INDIA REGIONAL OFFICE AT GUWAHATI NRDFI HOUSE 4TH FLOOR GS ROAD Page No.# 2/4 DISPUR GHY-06 ASSAM REP. BY ITS PROJECT DIRECTOR. 4:THE NATIONAL HIGHWAYS AND INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION (NHIDCL) PTI BUILDING 4 PARLIAMENT STREET SAMAD MARG AREA NEW DELHI-110001. 5:THE DISTRICT COMMISSIONER JORHAT DIST. JORHAT PIN- 785001. 6:THE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COMMISSIONER/ BRANCH OFFICER (LAND ACQUISITION BRANCH) JORHAT DISTRICT- JORHAT PIN- 7800 ASSAM (COMPETENT AUTHORITY UNDER THE NATIONAL HIGHWAYS ACT 1956). 7:THE CIRCLE OFFICER TEOK REVENUE CIRCLE TEAOK DIST. JORHAT ASSAM PIN- 785001. ------------ Advocate for the applicant(s): Mr. B Sharma Advocate for the respondent(s): Mr. RK Talukdar, Standing Counsel NHIDC Mr. J Handique for respondent Nos.5 to 7 Page No.# 3/4 B E F O R E HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEVASHIS BARUAH ORDER 23.06.2026 Heard Mr. B Sharma, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner. Also heard Mr. RK Talukdar, the learned counsel who appears on behalf of respondent No.4 and Mr. J Handique, the learned counsel, who appears on behalf of the respondent Nos.5, 6 and 7. 2. The petitioner herein is aggrieved by the action on the part of the respondent authorities in not including the value of the loss sustained by the petitioner to the factory building as well as the attached machineries on account of the acquisition of the land in the Award so passed by the Competent Authority for Land Acquisition under Section 3G(1) of the National Highways Act, 1956 (for short, ‘the Act of 1956’). 3. Section 3G(5) of the Act of 1956 makes it abundantly clear that if a person aggrieved is dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation, the person aggrieved has to file an application seeking reference to Arbitrator to decide the inadequacy of the quantum of compensation. 4. It is also well settled by the Supreme Court in the case of National Highways Authority of India Vs. Sri P. Nagaraju @ Cheluvaiah & Anr. reported in (2022) 15 SCC 1, that while assessing the compensation, the Competent Authority for Land Acquisition as well as the Arbitrator has to take note of the provisions of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, more particularly, Page No.# 4/4 Sections 26 to 30 of the said Act of 2013, read with Section 3G(7) of the Act of 1956. 5. Taking into account the above, as the petitioners’ grievance lies on the question of inadequacy of the compensation and the petitioner has an adequate and efficacious remedy under Section 3G(5) of the Act of 1956, it would not be proper on the part of this Court to exercise the extraordinary jurisdiction in the facts of the instant case. 6. Accordingly, the instant petition stands disposed of with the following observations and directions: (i). This Court is not inclined to entertain the instant writ petition. (ii). Liberty granted to the petitioner to file an application under Section 3G(5) of the National Highway Act, 1956 and if such application is filed, the Arbitrator shall duly consider such application in the light of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of National Highways Authority of India (supra). JUDGE Comparing Assistant