NUR ALI V. STATE OF ASSAM AND OTHERS

Date of Order: 15 December 2022

BRIEF FACTS

The petitioner, Nur Ali, challenged a notice dated 15 November 2019, issued by the Central Government, informing him of the acquisition of the Right of User over his land (Dag No. 446, Periodic Patta No. 7) in Village Katlapathar, District Barpeta, for the laying of a pipeline under the Petroleum and Mineral Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Act, 1962. The petitioner contended that due process was not followed for acquiring the Right of User, and that the compensation assessed for his land was inadequate.

FACTUAL MATRIX

On 2 July 2019, the Government of India issued a notification for the acquisition of Right of User over certain lands, including the petitioner’s, for laying the Barauni-Guwahati Natural Gas Pipeline as part of the Jagdishpur-Haldia-Bokaro-Dhamra (JHBDPL) Project. The petitioner’s father, Hakim Miya, was the recorded pattadar of the land at the time of notification. Despite receiving notices in the name of his father, the petitioner, as the legal heir, claimed that the land was being acquired without following due process and raised concerns over the adequacy of compensation.

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY THE PETITIONER

The petitioner argued that the acquisition process was flawed, particularly highlighting that he was not personally notified about the land acquisition. Further, he contended that the compensation offered was insufficient and should be enhanced. He also asserted that the notice issued by the respondent No. 4 was unlawful as it was not within the legal purview of the authorities.

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY THE RESPONDENT

The respondent No. 4 contended that the notification for acquisition under Section 9(1) of the 1962 Act had been duly followed. Compensation was assessed by the competent authority, and part of it had already been disbursed to the petitioner. Respondent No. 4 further pointed out that if the petitioner was dissatisfied with the amount of compensation, the statutory remedy available under Section 10 of the 1962 Act was to approach the District Judge for adjudication.

COURT FINDINGS

The Court observed that the notification regarding the acquisition of the Right of User in the land had been issued in compliance with the provisions of the 1962 Act, including publication in the Gazette and issuance of notices to the landowner. The petitioner’s father, Hakim Miya, was duly notified, and the petitioner, as the legal heir, had not raised objections before the competent authority.

The Court held that the provisions of the 1962 Act were strictly followed, and the compensation had been determined by the competent authority. The petitioner had already received part of the compensation for the land and crops. Regarding the grievance of inadequate compensation, the Court emphasized that the 1962 Act provided a clear statutory remedy. Under Section 10, the petitioner could approach the District Judge if dissatisfied with the compensation assessed.

COURT CONCLUSION

The writ petition was dismissed as the petitioner had an adequate alternative remedy under the 1962 Act to address his grievance regarding compensation. The Court observed that since the petitioner had already received part of the compensation, he could not bypass the statutory process. The Court further directed the petitioner to approach the District Judge for adjudication on the issue of compensation within one month from the order.