Possession under Section 4(1) must remain in abeyance pending disposal of a Section 3(3) statutory appeal.

The petitioner, Mouchak Agro LLP, claimed ownership and occupation of 211 Bighas 1 Katha 19 Lessas of land at Rajabali Bagan, Morangi Revenue Circle, Golaghat, Assam.

The District Commissioner, Golaghat, acting as a person authorised by the State Government, passed an order dated 6 May 2026 in Form B under Section 3(1) of the Assam Land (Requisition and Acquisition) Act, 1964 (“1964 Act”), requisitioning the land for setting up an Industrial Estate of Numaligarh Refinery Limited.

The petitioner filed an appeal before the State Government on 29 May 2026 under Section 3(3), contending, inter alia, that the stated purpose did not fall within Section 3(1) of the 1964 Act.

While the appeal remained pending, the District Commissioner issued an order dated 28 July 2026 in Form C under Section 4(1), directing the petitioner to surrender possession of the land to the Circle Officer within ten days.

The State Government subsequently confirmed that the petitioner’s statutory appeal was still pending.

Whether the authority could proceed under Section 4(1) of the 1964 Act and direct delivery of possession while the petitioner’s statutory appeal under Section 3(3) against the requisition order remained pending.

Whether the petitioner’s right of appeal under Section 3(3) would become illusory if possession were taken before the State Government decided the appeal.

What interim arrangement was necessary to preserve the parties’ rights pending disposal of the statutory appeal.

Section 3(1) of the 1964 Act empowers the State Government or an authorised person to requisition land for specified public purposes, while Section 3(3) confers on an interested person a right to appeal to the State Government against an order made by an authority other than the State Government; the State Government’s decision is final.

Section 4(1) permits the State Government or an authorised person to direct surrender or delivery of possession of requisitioned land.

The court held that the statutory appeal under Section 3(3) is a substantive right and cannot be rendered illusory; the State Government must examine the dispute and act judicially.

The court relied on Prabhat Chandra Deka v. K.C. Baruah, AIR 1960 Assam 1, which held that an appeal against requisition involves adjudication of the competing rights of the authority and the objector.

The court also distinguished requisition from acquisition: requisition ordinarily transfers possession without transferring title and is temporary in nature.

The requisition order was passed by the District Commissioner, not by the State Government, thereby triggering the petitioner’s statutory right of appeal under Section 3(3).

Since the appeal challenged the very legality and purpose of the requisition and remained pending, the State Government had yet to make the final determination contemplated by the statute.

Taking possession under Section 4(1) before that determination could alter the nature and character of the land and prejudice the petitioner, even if the eventual appellate decision were favourable to it.

The court therefore declined to continue parallel adjudication of the merits in the writ petition and balanced the equities by keeping the possession order in abeyance pending the statutory appeal.

It directed the State Government to dispose of the petitioner’s appeal dated 29 May 2026 as expeditiously as possible, after affording the petitioner an opportunity of hearing, and to communicate the decision immediately thereafter.

The order dated 28 July 2026 under Section 4(1) directing delivery of possession was kept in abeyance and made subject to the State Government’s decision in the appeal.

The parties were directed to maintain the existing status quo concerning the subject land until disposal of the appeal.

No order as to costs was made.