Guwahati

Gauhati High Court seeks fresh affidavit from DC over land acquisition for DRDO

Sentinel Digital Desk

STAFF REPORTER

GUWAHATI: The Gauhati High Court has observed that the process of land acquisition as per law may have to be carried out afresh by the Deputy Commissioner of the Kamrup district in case official documents prove that the earlier process of acquiring 33 bighas and 10 lessas of land for the Defence Research and Development Organization (DRDO) from 16 persons under the Kamalpur Revenue Circle, which was notified in 2008 and 2009, was marked by lapses. The Deputy Commissioner has been consequently asked to file an additional affidavit to specify the details of the land acquisition process.

A single-judge Bench of the High Court comprising Justice Kalyan Rai Surana, while hearing a writ petition filed by the aggrieved land owners, noted that the Deputy Commissioner of Kamrup had earlier submitted before the court via an affidavit that acquisition of land measuring 248 bighas, two kathas and 18 lessas in Natuanacha village under Kamalpur Revenue Circle for 'establishment of DRDO in Kamrup district' was initiated under the Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The land included the petitioners' land measuring. However, it was later noticed at a later date that land measuring 190 bighas, one katha and two lessas, including the petitioners' land measuring 33 bighas and 10 lessas, was Reserved Forest land and hence the land in question was de-acquired under Section 48(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The Deputy Commissoner's affidavit further stated that the de-acquired land was diverted and handed over to DRDO by the DFO, North Kamrup Division, on January 10, 2011.

The court further noted that the Deputy Commissioner has denied the allegation that his office had not followed any procedure established by law while acquiring the land for DRDO. The affidavit, however, also stated that the land of the petitioners that had been de-acquired and handed over to DRDO was patta land before it had been declared as Reserved Forest land in 1971. Moreover, the Deputy Commissioner's affidavit stated that in a meeting held on May 28, 2014 with representatives of the DRDO, Forest Department etc., a resolution was taken that "value of land and zirat may be given in the form of an ex-gratia under NRRP Act, 2007 with approval of the State Government".

As such, the Bench observed, "Therefore, it appears that the Deputy Commissioner, Kamrup has admitted that the land of the petitioners were earlier a patta land. No document is annexed along the affidavit-in-opposition to show how patta was cancelled. No document is annexed as to how the patta land could be used for creating reserve forest. No document is annexed to show how land was acquired and was de-acquired. Upon searching the internet, no Act by the name of NRRP Act, 2007 referred in the said affidavit was found. But there is a National Rehabilitation and Resettlement Policy, 2007. The said policy does not do away with the requirement of land acquisition.

"Therefore, one last opportunity is granted to the Deputy Commissioner, Kamrup to file an additional affidavit-in-opposition and to annex thereto the documents on which the affidavit-in-opposition filed on 01.10.2019 is based. The Deputy Commissioner, Kamrup is put to notice that on his failure to annex the documents in support of the statement made in affidavit-in- opposition filed on 01.10.2019, the Court would be inclined to pass appropriate orders on the next date requiring the personal appearance of the Deputy Commissioner, Kamrup together with the concerned Circle Officer and the concerned Lat Mandal, under whose jurisdiction the land of the petitioners would fall."

The Bench added, "In the event the Deputy Commissioner, Kamrup finds in course of his enquiry that the patta of the petitioners' land was not cancelled in accordance with law and if the notification for creating reserve forest does not specifically include the projected patta land of the petitioners measuring 33 bighas, 10 lessas, the pendency of this writ petition shall not be a bar to take appropriate steps for formally acquiring the land of the petitioners."

Also Watch: