Ratul Borthakur And Ors vs Union Of India And Ors

Devashis Baruah, J

Heard Mr. M. Dutta, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioners. Mr. A. K. Dutta, the learned counsel appears on behalf of Respondent No.1; Mr. S. S. Roy, the learned counsel appears on behalf of Respondent Nos.2, 5 & 6; Mr. R. K. Talukdar, the learned counsel appears on behalf of the Respondent Nos.3 & 4 and Mr. N. N. Jha, the learned counsel appears on behalf of the Respondent Nos.7 to 13.

The Petitioners herein are aggrieved by the action on the part of the Respondent No.6 in disbursing the entire compensation of Rs.81,74,365/- to the Respondent Nos.7 to 13 by disregarding the rights of the Petitioners in respect to the said land. The Petitioners had also submitted an application before the Respondent No.6 on 13.12.2024 and the same having not been considered, the Petitioners have approached this Court by filing the present writ petition.

From the materials on record, it is seen that a plot of land admeasuring 1 katha 11 lechas covered by Dag No.2125 of Annual Patta No.3 situated at Dergaon under Mouza-Dergaon was acquired under the National Highways Act, 1956 (for short, 'the Act of 1956') for widening and four-laning of the National Highway No.37.

The Petitioners herein claim that they are the legal representatives of Late Isheswar Borthakur along with the Respondent Nos.7 to 13. However, the Respondent No.6 has disbursed the entire compensation to the Respondent Nos.7 to 13, and it is under such circumstances, the Petitioners have approached this Court.

Mr. N. N. Jha, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent Nos.7 to 13 submitted that the compensation was awarded on 26.03.2023 and the Petitioners have raised such objection by filing the representation only on 13.12.2024.

This Court has also taken note of the affidavit which has been filed by the Respondent No.6 wherein it is categorically mentioned that the land which was acquired was found under the possession of the Respondent Nos.7 to 13 and taking into account that the rights of the Respondent Nos.7 to 13 were that of Annual Patta holders and not land holders, the compensation was paid to the Respondent Nos.7 to 13 by the Respondent No.6 in terms with Section 3H(3) of the Act of 1956.

Mr. M. Dutta, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioners, however, submitted that though it has been submitted that on 13.12.2024, the Petitioners had submitted their application under Section 3H(4) of the Act of 1956, but it is also a fact that immediately upon receipt of the notice issued by the Respondent No.6, the Petitioners have appeared before the said Authority and claimed their rights over the said land. The learned counsel further submitted that there being disputes as regards the entitlement as well as the apportionment of the compensation, the Respondent No.6 had no jurisdiction to decide the entitlement as well as the apportionment of the compensation and it was the duty on the part of the Respondent No.6 to make the reference in terms with Section 3H(4) of the Act of 1956.

This Court has heard the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the parties and has given an anxious consideration. A perusal of Section 3H of the Act of 1956 would show that in terms with Sub-section (1) of Section 3H of the Act of 1956, the Central Government shall deposit the amount of compensation determined, before the Competent Authority before taking over the possession. A further perusal of Section 3H(3) of the Act of 1956 shows that when there are no disputes, the Competent Authority would have the power to disburse the said amount to the persons who are entitled to receive the compensation.

Section 3H(4) of the Act of 1956 stipulates that in the circumstance there are disputes, as regards entitlement and/or apportionment of the amount, the said dispute is required to be referred for a decision of the Principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction within the limit of whose jurisdiction the land is situated.

In the instant case as the land was situated within the jurisdiction of the learned District and Sessions Judge, Golaghat, the Competent Authority for land acquisition, i.e. the Respondent No.6 instead of disbursing the amount ought to have referred the said dispute to the decision of the learned District and Sessions Judge, Golaghat.

This Court also takes note that the Petitioners have also submitted an application in terms with Section 3H(4) of the Act of 1956 on 13.12.2024 and the Respondent No.6 then has also not taken any steps in that regard.

Considering the above, this Court therefore disposes of the instant writ petition with the following observations and directions: -

(i) The Respondent No.6 is directed to act upon the representation so submitted by the Petitioners on 13.12.2024 and refer the dispute as regards the entitlement and/or apportionment of the compensation between the Petitioners herein as well as the Private Respondents to the decision of the learned District and Sessions Judge, Golaghat.

(ii) The same be done within a period of 15 days from the date a certified copy of the present order is served upon the Respondent No.6.

(iii) This Court further observes that though the Private Respondents herein have received the said compensation as was disbursed by the Respondent No.6, but the entitlement of the Private Respondents herein as well as the Petitioners to the determined amount of compensation shall be subject to such decision of the learned District and Sessions Judge, Golaghat.

No costs.