Deepa Gogoi vs The Union Of India & Ors.

Heard Mr. P. Mahanta, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner. Mr. S. K. Medhi, the learned counsel appears on behalf of the Respondent No.1; Mr. C. Baruah, the learned counsel appears on behalf of the Respondent Nos.2 to 4 and Ms. U. Das, the learned Additional Senior Government Advocate appears on behalf of the Respondent Nos.5, 6 & 7.

It is the case of the Petitioner herein that the Petitioner is the owner of a plot of land admeasuring 3 kathas and 10 lechas covered by Dag No.1121 of Patta No.384 situated at village Khatual under Morabazar Mouza of Amguri Circle. It is claimed by the Petitioner that in an Award passed under Section 3G of the National Highways Act, 1956 (for short, ‘the Act of 1956’), 11 lechas of land of the Petitioner was shown to have been acquired for the purpose of four-laning of the National Highway No.37. It is also the case of the Petitioner that an amount of Rs.4,78,908/-was awarded as compensation for the 11 lechas of land which the Petitioner duly received on 11.07.2017. Subsequent thereto, in the year 2019, a joint verification was carried out by the Circle Officer, Amguri Revenue Circle wherein it was opined that the requirement was only 7 lechas of land and not 11 lechas. The case of the Petitioner herein is that it is impermissible for the Respondents to reduce the area of the land once an Award is passed under Section 3G of the Act of 1956. Further to that, it is also the case of the Petitioner that the compensation so awarded for the 11 lechas of land is not adequate taking into account that the dwelling house of the Petitioner was taken into consideration. The reliefs sought for by the Petitioner being relevant for the purpose of disposal of the instant writ petition are reproduced herein under:-

In the above perspective, let this Court now take note of the other materials on record. The Petitioner has not enclosed the Notification under Section 3A of the Act of 1956 by which the Central Government notifies the land which is proposed to be acquired along with the names of the persons interested. The Petitioner has not enclosed the Notification under Section 3D of the Act of 1956 which is very relevant in as much as it is only upon issuance of the Notification under Section 3D of the Act of 1956, the land vests upon the Central Government. What is enclosed in the writ petition is an unsigned and unauthenticated Table containing the names of various persons including the Petitioner which the Petitioner claims to be the 3G Award statement. The Petitioner's Bank Account details shows that the amount of Rs.4,78,908/- was transferred to the Petitioner's Bank Account from the Office of the Deputy Commissioner, Sivasagar.

A communication issued by the Circle Officer, Amguri Revenue Circle was enclosed informing the Petitioner that her 11 lechas of land under Periodic Patta No.384 of Dag No.1129 was acquired for the purpose of four laning of the National Highway. In addition to that, the Petitioner has enclosed various other documents which have no specific relevance in so far as the acquisition of the Petitioner's land is concerned in as much as the acquisition can only take effect when there is a Notification under Section 3D of the Act of 1956.

When the writ petition was listed before this Court on 29.11.2024, a submission was made to the effect by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner that as it is not permissible on the part of the Respondents to reduce the area once the land vests upon the Central Government by carrying out the requisition. This Court enquired with the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent Authorities as to whether a Notification has been issued under Section 3D of the Act of 1956 and categorically opined in the subsequent order, more particularly on 20.12.2024 that without a Notification under Section 3D of the Act of 1956, the land does not vest upon the Central Government.

When the matter was again listed before this Court on 17.08.2026, this Court directed the Respondents to produce the Notification under Section 3D of the Act of 1956 whereby the land of the Petitioner was notified, failing which this Court shall proceed to dispose of the writ petition presuming that no Notification under Section 3D of the Act of 1956 was issued for the land of the Petitioner.

Today, Ms. U. Das, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondents and more particularly the Competent Authority of Land Acquisition submitted that there is no Notification issued under Section 3D of the Act of 1956 qua the land of the Petitioner. It was also stated that no land of the Petitioner was acquired and the compensation paid Rs.4,78,908/-was only in respect to the zirat standing over the Government land. For the purpose of vesting of rights upon the Central Government, there has to be a Notification under Section 3D of the Act of 1956. In absence of such Notification, no land can vest belonging to the Petitioner. Consequently, the grievance of the Petitioner is totally unfounded.

Under such circumstances, the question therefore arises as to whether the reliefs which have been sought for by the Petitioner as quoted herein above, can at all be granted to the Petitioner. The relief (a) and relief (b) relate to inadequacy of the compensation. If a person is aggrieved by the inadequacy of the compensation, the remedy lies under Section 3G(5) of the Act of 1956. However, the same shall only be permissible provided there is any acquisition of the Petitioner’s land. In the instant case, as no land of the Petitioner was acquired, the question of inadequacy of compensation do not arise. In so far as the reliefs sought for at reliefs (c) and (d), the same is also misconceived as no land of the Petitioner was acquisitioned.

Under such circumstances, it is therefore the opinion of this Court that this is not a fit case for exercising the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution for which the writ petition stands dismissed.