Abdus Salam Mondal And 44 Ors vs. The State Of Assam And 6 Ors

Held

The Court held that while the petitioners' grievance regarding the quantum of compensation and the alleged improper demarcation was a matter pending in the main writ petition (WP(C) 6188 of 2024), the impugned notice dated 10.12.2024 was primarily concerned with the petitioners' failure to claim compensation and vacate the land. Since the notice itself stated that no compensation had been claimed, the Court was not inclined to pass orders on the compensation claim at this stage. However, acknowledging the short three-day notice period for vacating the premises, the Court found it just to grant the petitioners an extension. The Court directed the petitioners to vacate and hand over possession of the land to the respondents on or before December 31, 2024. If the petitioners failed to comply, the respondents were at liberty to take appropriate measures as prescribed by law. The interlocutory application was disposed of with these directions.

Facts

The petitioners, who operate business establishments on land required for the NHIDCL project at Arearjhar Part II, District Dhubri, Assam, filed an interlocutory application seeking to set aside a notice dated December 10, 2024. This notice, served on December 10, 2024, granted them only three days to vacate the premises. The petitioners argued that this short timeframe was insufficient for them to relocate their businesses and that the demarcation of land by the PWD was improper, leading to incorrect compensation calculations. The respondents, including the State of Assam and NHIDCL, opposed the application, stating that the petitioners had not claimed compensation nor vacated the land despite repeated communications. They emphasized the need for timely project completion.

Key Issues

1. Whether the notice dated 10.12.2024, requiring the petitioners to vacate the land within three days for the NHIDCL project, is arbitrary and unreasonable, considering the petitioners' business establishments on the land and their claim of improper land demarcation and compensation calculation. Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioners contended that the three-day notice period to vacate was insufficient for them to relocate their businesses. They further argued that the demarcation of land by the PWD was not done properly, resulting in an incorrect calculation of the compensation they were entitled to. They sought further time to vacate. Revenue/State's Arguments: The respondents argued that the notice dated 10.12.2024 clearly indicated that the petitioners had not claimed compensation nor vacated the land. They submitted that if the petitioners were aggrieved by the quantum of compensation, they should follow the appropriate procedure. They also pointed out that repeated communications had been issued to the petitioners without compliance, necessitating the impugned notice for the timely progress of the National Highway construction.