Assam HC Orders Jorhat Officials To Pay Landowner Balance Of ₹50.2-Lakh Award Wrongly Credited To Another Claimant, With 12% Interest From Section 3G Notification

The petitioner’s land and structures were acquired for a four-lane National Highway.

The competent authority assessed compensation of ₹50,21,954 as payable to him, but, through an admitted disbursement error, that amount was deposited in the account of respondent No. 8, who was separately entitled to ₹20,35,389.

Respondent No. 8 received ₹63,45,534 in total.

The petitioner received only ₹7,11,809 after an interim order of the Court; the balance remained unpaid.

The State authorities acknowledged the mistake and stated that recovery proceedings had been initiated against respondent No. 8.

The petitioner sought payment of the outstanding compensation, interest and other reliefs under Article 226.

Article 300A prohibits deprivation of property except by authority of law; the right to claim compensation is inherent in that protection, and the State must ensure a fair and timely process.

The Court relied on K.T. Plantation (P) Ltd. v. State of Karnataka, which recognised the constitutional protection of property and the inbuilt right to compensation.

Kolkata Municipal Corporation v. Bimal Kumar Shah, which identified fair compensation and an efficient, timely process among the protections under Article 300A.

Ultra-Tech Cement Ltd. v. Mast Ram, which held that compensation, once determined, must be paid promptly and that delay may breach Article 300A.

The Court also considered Section 3G(5) of the National Highways Act, 1956, observing that the arbitration route for disputes over determination of compensation did not govern a case where the assessed amount was undisputed and had instead been wrongly disbursed.

The compensation amount payable to the petitioner was undisputed, and the authorities admitted that it had mistakenly been deposited in respondent No. 8’s account.

The Court therefore distinguished the case from disputes about the determination of compensation or apportionment that may engage the statutory remedies under Section 3G(5).

Because the petitioner’s land had been acquired and the assessed compensation had remained unpaid for more than a decade, the Court held that the wrongful disbursement and prolonged delay deprived him of compensation and an efficient, timely process, contrary to Article 300A.

The authorities’ recovery efforts against respondent No. 8 did not displace their obligation to pay the petitioner.

It directed respondent Nos. 5 and 6 to pay the petitioner’s assessed compensation of ₹50,21,954, adjusting the ₹7,11,809 already paid, within three months of receiving the certified judgment.

It further directed payment of interest at 12% per annum on the entire compensation amount from publication of the notification under Section 3G until payment.

The authorities may recover the mistaken payment from respondent No. 8 and must, after an inquiry by an officer not below the rank of Additional Chief Secretary, initiate appropriate legal action against the officials responsible for the erroneous disbursement.