Syedur Rahman vs The State Of Asssam And Anr.

1

GAHC010103772022
2026:GAU-AS:12640

IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM & ARUNACHAL PRADESH)

LA. App./7/2022

1. Syedur Rahman,
S/o- Late Mamiruddin Ahmed,
R/o Village-Salbari,
P.O. And Revenue Circle Boitamari,
P.S.- Abhayapuri,
Dist.-Bongaigaon, Assam.
…..Appellant
-Versus-

1. The State of Assam,
Represented By The District Collector (Deputy
Commissioner) Bongaigaon, Assam.

2. The Union of India,
Represented By The General Manager,
NF Railway,
Maligaon, Guwahati-11.

3. The Principal Secretary To The Government of
Assam,
Revenue And D.M. Department,
Dispur, Guwahati.
……Respondents

For Appellant Mr. M.A. Sheikh,Advocate.


For Respondents Ms. D.D. Barman, Additional Senior
1.
Government Advocate.

LA. App./7/2022

2

Mr. K. Gogoi, Central Government Counsel.
2.

Date of Hearing 21.07.2026.
:
02.09.2026
Date of Judgment :

BEFORE

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MRIDUL KUMAR KALITA
JUDGMENT AND ORDER


[1] Heard Mr. M.A. Sheikh, the learned counsel for the appellant.
Also heard Ms. D.D. Barman, the learned Additional Senior
Government Counsel, appearing for respondent No. 1, as well
as Mr. K. Gogoi, the learned Central Government Counsel,

appearing for respondent No. 2.

[2] This appeal under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act,
1894, has been preferred by the appellant, Md. Syedur
Rahman, impugning the judgment and order dated
04.02.2021, passed by the learned District Judge,
Bongaigaon, in Title Suit (Land Acquisition) No. 30/2016,
whereby the enhanced compensation for the acquired land
was granted to the present appellant at the rate of Rs.
6,00,000/- (Rupees Six Lakh only) per Bigha, along with an
interest and the rate of 6% per annum from the date of
passing of compensation order by the Collector till receipt of

the same.

[3] The facts relevant for consideration of the instant appeal, in
brief, are that the present appellant was the absolute owner
LA. App./7/2022

3

of a plot of land, measuring 4 Bigha 2 Katha 7 Lecha, situated
at Revenue Village- Salbari, under Revenue Circle and Tehsil-
Boitamari, Assam covered by Dag No. 564 of periodic Patta
No. 103. Out of the aforesaid amount, the Government
acquired a portion of land, measuring 1 Bigha, 1 Katta, 5
Lecha for construction of a broad-gauge railway line in
between New Maynaguri and Jogighopa.
[4] At the time of acquisition of the aforesaid land, the District
Collector, Bongaigaon, assessed the value of the land, at the
rate of Rs. 1,20,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Twenty Thousand)
per Bigha and also assessed the total compensation payable
to the present appellant, including the compensation against
the standing structures in Zirat of the petitioner over the
acquired land at Rs. 6,62,312/- (Rupees Six Lakhs Sixty-Two

Thousand Three Hundred and Twelve) only.

[5] Being aggrieved with the aforesaid assessment, the present
appellant filed an application under Section 18 of the Land
Acquisition Act, 1894, before the Land Acquisition Officer,
(Collector and Deputy Commissioner, Bongaigaon) praying for
referring the matter to the appropriate court for determination
of adequate compensation for acquisition of 1 Bigha, 1 Katha,
5 Lecha of land of the appellant. Accordingly, the matter was
referred to the Court of learned District Judge, Bongaigaon.
The said case was registered as Misc. L.A. Case No. 12/2014.
The present respondent Nos. 1 and No. 2 had filed separate
written statements in the aforesaid reference case. Ultimately,
LA. App./7/2022

4

by the judgment dated 04.02.2021, passed in Title Suit (Land
Acquisition) No. 30/2016, the reference was disposed of in the
manner has already been discussed in the foregoing

paragraphs of this judgment.

[6] Mr. M. A. Sheikh, the learned counsel for the appellant, has
submitted that though several grounds have been taken in the
memo of appeal by the present appellant, however, the main
grievance of the appellant is that due to acquisition of a
portion of land of the present appellant, i.e., 1 Bigha 1 Katha
5 Lecha of land, out of total land of 4 Bigha, 2 Katha 7 Lecha
only 3 Bigha 1 Katha 2 Lecha of land remains with the present
appellant. He further submits that due to construction of
railway track over the acquired land, the remaining land
measuring 3 Bigha 1 Katha 2 Lecha has been severed into two
parts. He submits that due to construction of railway track,
the severed land of the appellant remains submerged under
rainy water during rainy season and has become unusable for
human living and for construction of dwelling houses, hence,
the appellant is entitled to compensation for the damage
sustained by the present appellant by the reason of severing
of his land into two parts due to acquisition made by the

respondent authorities.
[7] He submits that though the reference court has enhanced the
value of the land from Rs. 1,20,000/- (Rupees One Lakh
Twenty Thousand) per Bigha to Rs.6,00,000/- (Rupees Six
Lakhs) per Bigha, however, the reference court has not made
LA. App./7/2022

5

any observation regarding the damage caused to the
appellant due to severance of his remaining land due to
acquisition. He submits that under Section 23 of the Land
rdly
Acquisition Act, 1894, in the column 3 , any damage
sustained by the person interested at the time of taking of
possession of the land by the Collector by reason of severing
of such lands from his other land, shall has to be taken into
consideration for computing the due compensation payable to
the appellant. However, neither the collector at the time of
acquiring the land nor the reference court at the time of
passing of the impugned judgment has taken into
consideration the said fact. As such, he submits that due to
submergence of water in the severed land during rainy
season, the Zirat standing over the said land also got
damaged and no compensation has been awarded to the
appellant against such damage. He, therefore, submits that
the impugned judgment of the reference court is liable to be
modified by awarding the compensation which is due to the
rdly
present appellant under Section 23 column 3 of the Land
Acquisition Act, 1894.
[8] On the other hand, Mr. K. Gogoi, the learned Central
Government Counsel, appearing for respondent No. 2, has
submitted that though the reference court has not specifically
stated in the impugned judgment anything regarding the
severed land of the appellant, however, it has taken into
consideration the fact that no damage has been caused to the
present appellant due to such severance of land, after
LA. App./7/2022

6

considering the averments made in the written statement filed
by the Union Government before the reference court.
[9] He submits that the respondent No. 2 in its written statement
filed by before the reference court has categorically denied
that any damage is caused to the severed land of the
appellant on account of acquisition of a portion of land of the
appellant, i.e., 1 Bigha 1 Katha 5 Lecha out of 4 Bigha 2 Katha
7 Lecha. He submits that it was categorically pointed to the
reference court by the Union of India that railway track will be
constructed by keeping provisions for sufficient clear
waterways through railway bridges at railway chainage
K.M.228/131 and K.M. 228.754 (within Major Bridge) and
three Road Under Bridge (RUB) to avoid any submergence or
water logging near railway lines.
[10] He submits that the construction of railway line over the
acquired rent has been completed by keeping sufficient clear
water ways through railway bridges and road under bridges as
mentioned by the respondent No. 2 in their written statement.
As such, no compensation is due to the appellant under
Section 23(thirdly) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. He
further submits that in the meanwhile, the Union of India has
already deposited the enhanced compensation awarded to the
present appellant by the reference court before the Deputy
Commissioner, Bongaigaon and to support his submission, he
has produced a communication dated 07.03.2024, of the
Deputy Chief Engineer/Construction, N.F. Railway, Jogighopa.
LA. App./7/2022

7

[11] On the other hand, Ms. D.D. Barman, the learned Additional
Senior Government Counsel, appearing for respondent No. 1
has also submitted that the reference court has taken into
consideration all the aspects before enhancing the
compensation awarded to the present appellant for acquisition
of his land measuring 1 Bigha 1 Katha 5 Lecha. She submits
that the enhanced total compensation amounting to Rs.
9,29,040/- has already been paid to the present appellant.
She also submits that the reference court has taken into
consideration the averments made in the written statement of
the Union of India as well as of the present respondent, which
indicates that no damage was caused to the present appellant
due to severance of his land into two parts on account of
acquisition of 1 Bigha 1 Katha 5 Lecha of land out of the total
land of 4 Bigha 2 Katha and 7 Lecha.
[12] She further submits that the prayer of the present appellant in
his application made under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition
Act, 1894 are for referring his matter to the reference court
for determination of adequate compensation by enhancing the
awarded amount and same has been done by the reference
court by enhancing the value of land which was acquired by
the respondent authorities and also after taking into
consideration all aspects of the matters. She, therefore,
submits that the impugned judgment and award needs no
interference by this court in exercise of its appellate
jurisdiction under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act,
1894.
LA. App./7/2022

8

[13] I have considered the submissions made by the learned
counsel for both sides and have gone through the materials
available on record.
[14] On perusal of the materials on record, it appears that the
present appellant, while preferring the reference before the
Court of learned District Judge, Bongaigaon, had mainly
contended that the value of the acquired land has been
assessed at an arbitrarily low rate of Rs. 1,20,000/- per Bigha.
It appears that, ultimately, by the impugned judgment, the
said value has been enhanced from Rs. 1,20,000/- per Bigha
to Rs. 6,00,000/- per Bigha. It also appears from record, after
assessing the compensation at the enhanced rate of Rs.
6,00,000/- per Bigha, a compensation amount of Rs.
9,29,040/- has already been paid to the present appellant.
[15] It also appears that the present appellant also apprehended
that since the height of the railway tracks shall be more than
3 meters, the remaining land of the appellant shall be
submerged under rainwater during rainy season and, hence,
shall be unusable for human living by constructing dwelling
houses. However, said apprehension has been denied by the
Union of India in its written statement by stating that the
apprehension does not have any basis as the railway line will
be constructed with provisions of sufficient clear waterways
through railway bridges at Railway Chainage Km 228/131 and
Km 228.754 (Major Bridge) and 3 Railway Under Bridges
(RUB) to avoid any submergence or waterlogging near the
LA. App./7/2022

9

railway line. The learned Central Government Counsel has also
submitted that the railway line has been accordingly
constructed and there has been no waterlogging as
apprehended by the appellant in his application under Section
18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.
[16] On perusal of the materials on record , it appears that since,
there is no evidence on record to show that due to severing of
land of the appellant by the reason of acquiring 1 Bigha 1
Katha 5 Lecha of land out of his total land, any damage has
been caused thereto due to waterlogging in the said land, as
apprehended by the present appellant in his application under
Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, this Court finds
no infirmity or error in the impugned judgment of learned
District Judge, Bongaigaon, where no compensation was
computed under Section 23, Thirdly, of the Land Acquisition
Act, 1894, as no evidence of any damage sustained by the
present appellant could be adduced before the Reference
Court.
[17] It also appears from record that the appellant has already
received compensation amount of Rs. 2,57,868/- for
structures and Rs. 58,549/- for zirat, as well as solatium and
additional compensation at the rate of 30% and 12%
respectively. Hence, no interference is required in the
impugned judgment passed by the Court of learned District
Judge, Bongaigaon, on 04.02.2021 in Title Suit (Land
Acquisition) No. 30/2016.
LA. App./7/2022

10

[18] In view of the discussions made and the reasons stated in the
foregoing paragraphs, this Court finds no ground to interfere
with the impugned judgment of the Court of learned District
Judge, Bongaigaon, as there is no merit in the present appeal.
[19] This appeal is, accordingly, dismissed.
[20] The Registry shall send back the records of Title Suit (Land
Acquisition) Case No. 30/2016 to the Court of learned District
Judge, Bongaigaon, along with a copy of this judgment.
[21] The parties are left to bear their own costs.


JUDGE
Comparing Assistant

Digitally signed
by Munmun
Boruah
Date: 2026.09.02
17:08:33 +05'30'
Munmu
n Boruah
LA. App./7/2022