Samiran Dey vs. The Union Of INDIA And 6 Ors

Facts

The petitioner, Samiran Dey, filed a writ petition before the Gauhati High Court alleging a discrepancy in the area of land acquired from him. A notification published in the English daily 'Eastern Chronicle' stated the acquired land was 0.029 hectares, while the Bengali daily 'Jugashankha' reported it as 0.0029 hectares. The petitioner approached various authorities for correction without success. The Court, vide an order dated 12.08.2024, directed the District Administration to provide instructions. The District Administration admitted the discrepancy in the Bengali newspaper was a printing error and clarified that the Gazette Notification No.S.O.1386 (E) dated 15.03.2024, published in 'Eastern Chronicle' on 23.03.2024, correctly mentioned 0.029 hectares of land acquired from the petitioner under Dag No.295. A corrigendum was also published in 'Jugashankha' on 18.08.2024.

Held

The Court held that the Gazette Notification No.S.O.1386 (E) dated 15.03.2024 accurately reflects the land acquired from the petitioner, which is 0.029 hectares under Dag No.295. The discrepancy in the Bengali newspaper 'Jugashankha' was acknowledged as a printing error and was subsequently rectified by a corrigendum published on 18.08.2024. The Court further observed and directed that the respondent authorities must take possession of only the area of land admeasuring 0.029 hectares, as per the notification under Section 3D of the National Highways Act, 1956. The Court clarified that this direction would not prevent the authorities from acquiring further land from the petitioner, provided they follow the due procedure established by law. The issue of the authorities surveying 0.0357 hectares was addressed by the directive to take possession only of the notified 0.029 hectares.

Key Issues

1. Whether the discrepancy in the published area of acquired land (0.029 hectares vs. 0.0029 hectares) in different newspapers constitutes a material error requiring correction, and if so, what is the correct area of land acquired from the petitioner under Section 3D of the National Highways Act, 1956? Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that there was a significant discrepancy in the published land acquisition details, necessitating a correction. Revenue/State's contention: The respondents, including the District Administration and NHIDCL, contended that the variation in the Bengali newspaper was a printing error. They submitted that the Gazette Notification No.S.O.1386 (E) dated 15.03.2024, which specified 0.029 hectares, was the correct record. They further stated that a corrigendum was issued and published in the Bengali daily 'Jugashankha' to rectify the error. The respondents also indicated that a communication dated 05.08.2024 was sent to the petitioner clarifying the correct area and that the mistake in the newspaper should be ignored. Additionally, the petitioner raised a new concern that the authorities were surveying 0.0357 hectares, a larger area than notified for acquisition.