Page No.# 1/9 GAHC010180132023 2026:GAU-AS:10034 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/4727/2023 MD. AIAZUDDIN AHMED AND ANR S/O- LATE AZID ALI, R/O- VILL- SARUTHEKERABARI, P.O- AULACHOKUA, P.S- MANGALDAI, DIST- DARRANG, ASSAM, PIN-784529 2: MD. MAJIBULLAH ALI S/O- LATE MAZID SHEIKH R/O- VILL- SARUTHEKERABARI P.O- AULACHOKUA P.S- MANGALDAI DIST- DARRANG ASSAM PIN-78452 VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 4 ORS REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM, REVENUE AND D.M DEPARTMENT, DISPUR, GUWAHATI-6. 2:THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER DISTRICT- DARRANG ASSAM PIN- 784125. 3:THE ADDL. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (REVENUE) DISTRICT- DARRANG ASSAM PIN- 784125. 4:THE CIRCLE OFFICER Page No.# 2/9 MANGALDAI REVENUE CIRCLE MANGALDAI DISTRICT- DARRANG ASSAM PIN- 784125. 5:SIRAJUL HAQUE S/O- LATE SIDDIQUE ALI R/O- VILL- SARUTHEKERABARI P.O- RANGAMATI DIST- DARRANG ASSAM PIN-78452 BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVASHIS BARUAH For the Petitioner(s) :Mr. D. Baruah, Advocate For the Respondent(s) :Ms. P.R. Mahanta, Advocate for RespondentNo.1. :Mr. N. Das, Advocate for RespondentNos.2, 3 & 4. :Mr. M. Hossain, Advocate for RespondentNo.5. Date of hearing :21.07.2026. Date of judgment :21.07.2026. J UDGMENT & O RDER (O RAL ) Heard Mr. D. Baruah, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner. Also heard Ms. P.R. Mahanta, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent No.1; Mr. N. Das, learned counsel appearing for the Respondent Nos.2, 3 & 4 and Mr. M. Hossain, learned counsel appearing for Respondent No.5. Page No.# 3/9 [2] The present writ petition has been filed by the Petitioners being aggrieved by the inaction on the part of the Respondent authorities, more particularly, the Respondent No.3 in not releasing the compensation in respect of their rights over the land covered by Dag No.1671 and Dag No.1676 of Patta No.1 in Village Saru Thekerabari, under Mouza Rangamati, Lot No.3, within Mangaldai Sadar Revenue Circle in the District of Darrang, Assam. [3] The Petitioners herein claim that they have possessory rights over the land covered by Dag Nos.1671 and 1676 of Patta No.1 in Village Saruthekerabari under Mouza Rangamati, Lot No.3, within Mangaldai Sadar Revenue Circle in the District of Darrang, Assam. [4] The grievance of the Petitioners is that while disbursing the amount, the total compensation was paid to the Respondent No.5 and the Respondent No.5 did not, in turn, make payment to the Petitioners though the Respondent No. 5 had categorically submitted an affidavit before the competent authority of land acquisition that he shall do so. [5] This Court duly takes note of the copy of the Chitha pertaining to Dag No.1671, wherein the names of Majed Skeikh (Fajir), Maniruddin Ahmed (Ahmed) and Ajid Sheikh (Amir) have been mentioned as in the column of Riyot/Ahiyar. [6] This Court also takes note of that in Dag No.1676, the names Page No.# 4/9 of Majed Skeikh (Fajir), Maniruddin Ahmed (Ahmed) and Ajid Sheikh (Amir) have also been recorded in the column of Riyot/Ahiyar [7] It is also relevant to take note of that the Circle Officer, Mangaldoi Revenue Circle had issued notice to the Petitioners as well as the Respondent No.5 on 01.09.2022 for determination of their status in respect to the land covered by Dag Nos.1671 and 1676 of Patta No.1 of Village Saruthekerabari under Mouza Rangamati. [8] The Petitioners also submits that objections were duly filed before the Respondent No.3 that the compensation amount in respect of Dag Nos.1671 was disbursed to the Respondent No.5 and the Respondent No.5 is not willing to make payment to the Petitioners. The complaints, however, having not been disposed off, for which the Petitioners have approached this Court by filing the present writ petition. [9] This Court finds it relevant to take note of the affidavit filed by the Respondent No.1, wherein the Respondent No.1 duly admits that the compensation amount ought to have been divided between the Petitioners and the Respondent No.5 and in that regard, has also endorsed the agreement so entered into between the Petitioners and the Respondent No.5 in presence of the Circle Officer. [10] It is further mentioned that on the basis of this affidavit so filed by the Respondent No.5, who agreed to divide the share of Page No.# 5/9 compensation amongst the Petitioners and the Respondent No.5, the total compensation in respect of Dag No.1671 was disbursed to the Respondent No.5. It is also mentioned that the amount of compensation for Dag No.1676 have not been disbursed. [11] It is, however, seen from the affidavit filed by the Respondent No.5, wherein he had stated that the Respondent No.5 do not wish to claim any compensation in respect to Dag No.1676 of Patta No.1, as the said land is a Kabarstan. However, in so far as Dag No.1671 of Patta No.1, which is the subject matter of the present consideration, it is the specific case of the Respondent No.5 that though the petitioner No.2 as well as the Respondent No.5 were in occupation of the land in Dag No.1671 of Patta No.1, however, the petitioner No.2 had sold his possession of the land to one Moniruddin Ahmed and the remaining portion is under the possession of the Respondent No.5. [12] The learned counsel referring to the said affidavit filed by the Respondent No. 1 submitted that this very aspect would also be seen from the 3(G) estimate, which has been enclosed by the Respondent No.1 to the affidavit as Annexure-III, wherein the name of Moniruddin Ahmed and the Respondent No.5 has been recorded against Dag No. 1671. [13] To a pointed query made by this Court to the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent No.5 that if that be Page No.# 6/9 the stand of the Respondent No.5 in the affidavit, why did the Respondent No.5 submit an affidavit stating inter alia that the Petitioners as well as the Respondent No.5 are in occupation of the land and the Respondent No. 5 had agreed to divide the compensation. [14] The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent No.5 submitted that the said affidavit was prepared without the proper knowledge of the Respondent No.5 and as such, the said affidavit cannot be relied upon. It is the specific submission of the learned counsel that the Respondent No.5 is not well versed with the English language. [15] This Court has duly heard the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the parties. [16] From the materials on record, it is apparent that in so far as the compensation in respect to Dag No.1676 of Patta No.1, the said amount have not been disbursed and the Respondent No.5 also do not wish to claim the said amount, as he has specifically mentioned in the affidavit filed before this Court. [17] This Court further takes note that in the affidavit filed by the Respondent No.5, the 3(G) estimate which has been enclosed as Annexure-III by the Respondent No.1, the affidavit filed by the Respondent No.1 in the present proceedings as well as the Complaints Page No.# 7/9 so filed by the Petitioners shows that there is an apparent dispute as regards the entitlement of the amount of compensation in respect of Dag No.1671 of Patta No.1 in Village Saruthekerabari. [18] This Court duly takes note of Section 3(H) of the National Highways Act, 1956. From a perusal of the said Section, it is apparent that the competent authority of land Acquisition is required to disburse the amount of compensation so deposited in terms of Section 3(H)(1) when there is no dispute as regards the entitlement of the compensation or apportionment of the compensation. However, if there is a dispute, such dispute cannot be adjudicated by the competent authority of land acquisition and the same has to be adjudicated by the learned District Judge, within whose jurisdiction the land is situated. [19] Under such circumstances, the instant writ petition therefore stands disposed of with the following observations and directions: (i) The Respondent No. 3, who is the Competent Authority of land acquisition is directed to refer the dispute between the Petitioners and the Respondent No. 5 to the learned District Judge, Darrang at Mangaldoi for adjudication, as to whether the Petitioners herein are entitled to the compensation in respect of Dag No. 1671 of Patta No. 1 of Village Page No.# 8/9 Saruthekerabari, under Mouza Rangamati, Lot No.3, within Mangaldai Sadar Revenue Circle in the District of Darrang, Assam. The said reference be made forthwith upon receipt of a certified copy of the present judgment. (ii) Taking into account that there is a dispute and the counsel for the Respondent No. 5 has disowned the affidavit, so submitted on the basis of which, the amount of Rs.5,07,022/- was disbursed to the Respondent No. 5, the Respondent No. 3 shall take effective steps for recovery of the said amount so that the same may be deposited before the Reference Court in terms with the indemnity bond so submitted by the Respondent No. 5 at the time of claiming the disbursal of the awarded amount. (iii) Taking into account that there is no dispute in respect to Dag No. 1676 of Patta No. 1 of Village Saruthekerabari, under Mouza Rangamati, Lot No.3, within Mangaldai Sadar Revenue Circle in the District of Darrang, Assam and it is the categorical stand of the Respondent No. 5 that the Respondent No. 5 do not wish to claim any compensation in Page No.# 9/9 respect of Dag No. 1676 of Patta No. 1, the Respondent No. 3 shall disburse the amount to the person interested after being satisfied with the necessary documents as required for the disbursal of the said amount, (iv) The inter se rights and claims of the Petitioners and the Respondent No. 5 in respect to the compensation payable pertaining to Dag No. 1671 of Patta No. 1 of Village Saruthekerabari, under Mouza Rangamati in the district of Darrang, Assam are kept open, which shall be decided by the learned District Judge, Darrang, Mangaldoi in accordance with the provisions of law uninfluenced by the observations made hereinabove; and (v) No costs. JUDGE Comparing Assistant