Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010244482023 2026:GAU-AS:9590 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/668/2024 BASHANTI JAISWAL WIFE OF LATE DAYA SHANKAR JAISWAL, RESIDENT OF FETAGAON, FETAGAON, POST OFFICE- FETAGAON, MOUZA- DARGAON, DISTRICT- GOLAGHAT, ASSAM, PIN- 785614 VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 3 ORS REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM, REVENUE AND DISASTER MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT, DISPUR, GUWAHATI-06 2:DEPUTY COMMISSIONER GOLAGHAT OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER GOLAGHAT COURT ROAD DISTRICT- GOLAGHAT ASSAM- 785621 3:ADDL. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (LA) GOLAGHAT OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER GOLAGHAT COURT ROAD DISTRICT- GOLAGHAT ASSAM- 785621 4:SMTI. SIMA JAISWAL WIFE OF LATE DAYA SHANKAR JAISWAL RESIDENT OF FETAGAON POST OFFICE- FETAGAON Page No.# 2/3 MOUZA- DARGAON DISTRICT- GOLAGHAT ASSAM PIN- 78561 Advocate for the petitioner(s): Mr. R Sensua Advocate for the respondent(s): Mr. HK Hazarika Govt. Advocate, Assam Ms. G Hazarika, Standing Counsel Revenue Department B E F O R E HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEVASHIS BARUAH ORDER 14.07.2026 Heard Mr. R Sensua, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner. Also heard Ms. G Hazarika, the learned Standing Counsel, Revenue Department, who appears on behalf of the respondent No.1 and Mr. HK Hazarika, the learned counsel who appears on behalf of the respondent Nos.2 and 3. 2. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner being aggrieved by the actions on the part of the respondent authorities, more particularly, the respondent No.3 for determining the compensation as payable only to the respondent No.4, although the respondent No.4 is the second wife of Late Daya Shankar Jaiswal. Page No.# 3/3 3. This Court duly takes note of that the acquisition in the instant case is an acquisition carried out under the National Highways Act, 1956 (for short, ‘the Act of 1956’) and in case of any dispute as regards entitlement or apportionment, the petitioner ought to have approached the concerned Court in terms with Section 3H(4) of the Act of 1956. 4. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that taking into account the provisions of Section 3H(4) of the Act of 1956, the petitioner would not like to further pursue with the instant proceedings, but without prejudice to avail remedies under Section 3H(4) of the Act of 1956. 5. Taking into account the above, the instant writ petition stands closed on withdrawal. 6. Before parting with the records, this Court observes that the withdrawal of the instant writ petition shall not preclude or prejudice the petitioner to avail remedies under Section 3H(4) of the Act of 1956 before the learned District Judge, Golaghat, if so advised. JUDGE Comparing Assistant