Isabella Mariam

In a recent judgment, the Division Bench of the Gauhati High Court, comprising Chief Justice Vijay Bishnoi and Justice N. Unni Krishnan Nair, directed the State of Assam to determine compensation for land acquisition in accordance with the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. The court stated that the award for land acquisition was approved on 09.01.2014, thereby mandating compensation under the 2013 Act and dismissing the State's appeals.

The State’s challenge to an earlier judgment by the Single Judge, which had granted relief to the writ petitioners, was dismissed. The Division Bench found no error in the conclusion that the relevant land acquisition awards were finalized only after the new law came into effect.

Also Read:“Mere Presence Not Proof of Guilt”: Supreme Court Restores Acquittal in Gujarat Riots Case, Citing “No Evidence of Unlawful Assembly” and “Failure to Exclude Innocent Bystanders”

The matter stemmed from two writ petitions filed by individuals whose lands were acquired for the establishment of the Indian Institute of Information Technology (IIIT), Guwahati. The acquisition covered land in the villages of Sontola, Bongara, Maliata, and Sathikarpa under Chayani Mouza in Kamrup District. The acquisition was undertaken through four Land Acquisition (L.A.) cases: No. 2/2012, 1/2012, 11/2012, and 12/2012. Initially, only two L.A. cases were notified, but cases 11/2012 and 12/2012 were later included via a notification dated 25.05.2012.

The petitioners sought quashing of the acquisition proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and requested initiation of new proceedings under the 2013 Act. They specifically prayed for:

• "To issue a writ in the nature of 'Certiorari' quashing the Land Acquisition Case No.01/2012, 02/2012, 11/2012 and 12/2012."

• "To issue a writ in the nature of 'Mandamus' directing the Respondent No.1 & 2 to initiate the entire Land Acquisition proceedings de-novo under the 2013 Act."

• "Directing the Respondent No.1 & 2 to pay the appropriate amount of compensation under the 2013 Act."

• "Directing the Respondent No.1 & 2 to fix a reasonable time limit to complete the Land Acquisition proceedings and to pay the compensation after hearing the Petitioners."

The petitioners contended that since the 1894 Act was repealed by the 2013 Act effective from 01.01.2014, any land acquisition process, including award approval, must follow the provisions of the new law if not completed before that date. According to them, the final approval of awards took place on 09.01.2014, making the 2013 Act applicable under Section 24(1)(a).

The State contended that all procedural steps, including signing and approval of the awards, were completed on 31.12.2013. Therefore, the provisions of the repealed 1894 Act would still apply.

The Division Bench upheld the Single Judge's conclusions after examining official note-sheets and other documents. The court referred to multiple observations in the judgment, stating:

"The extracts of the note-sheets go to show that the estimates submitted in connection with the three LA Cases were approved by the Minister concerned on 31.12.2013. What was approved on 31.12.2013 was the estimate. It is also evident that awards in the three land acquisition cases in Form-15 were submitted to the Government by the Collector on 31.12.2013."

"The approval of the estimate by the Government is not one and the same thing as the approval of the award passed by the Collector."

Referring to precedents from the Supreme Court, the Division Bench observed:

"Under first proviso to Section 11 of the LA Act, no award can be made by the Collector without the previous approval of the appropriate Government or of such officer as the appropriate Government may authorize in that behalf. Such approval is a condition precedent for passing of an award."

The court further recorded:

"The Deputy Secretary had put up notes on 09.01.2014 in all the three cases indicating that the awards had been submitted and the same may be approved. The Additional Chief Secretary, Revenue and DM (LR) Department approved the same on 09.01.2014 in all the three cases."

The note-sheets and subsequent communications revealed consistent references that final approval of the awards took place only in January 2014. Referring to a note from August 2014 regarding land transfer to IIIT Guwahati, the court stated:

"In the said note-sheet, it is clearly mentioned that the award has been approved in respect of the 3(three) L.A. cases...in January, 2014 only."

Further, a 2016 case regarding a compensation claim confirmed the same timeline:

"The note-sheet prepared on the subject clearly reflects that the award in the above-referred 3(three) L.A. Cases was approved in January, 2014 only."

Also Read: Delhi High Court: Arbitrator Can Be Appointed Under Section 11(6) If MSME Council Fails to Initiate Mediation Under Section 18 of MSMED Act

Upon these findings, the Division Bench stated:

"In view of the fact situation when the award signed by the District Collector was approved by the State/ competent authority on 09.01.2014 then the same became an award only on 09.01.2014 as laid down by the Supreme Court in Bailamma (Smt.) Alias Doddabailamma."

Accordingly, the court dismissed the writ appeals and upheld the Single Judge's directive:

"The State respondents are directed to determine compensation on the basis of the provisions of the 2013 Act and to pay such compensation expeditiously by adjusting the amounts already paid."

Advocates Representing the Parties

For the Appellants: Mr. D. Mozumdar, Additional Advocate General, Assam Ms. D. Devi, Advocate

For the Respondents: Mr. P.K. Bhuyan, Advocate Mr. R. Bhuyan, Advocate

Case Title: The State of Assam & Others v. Abani Kanta Nath & Others and The State of Assam & Others v. Fulashwari Nath & Others

Neutral Citation: 2025: GAU-AS:3178-DB

Case Number: W.A. No.185/2017 and W.A. No.208/2017

Bench: Chief Justice Vijay Bishnoi, Justice N. Unni Krishnan Nair

[Read/Download order]