Simultaneous Service of Requisition and Possession Orders Cannot Extinguish Statutory Right of Appeal

The seven petitioners own periodic patta lands in Village Garal, Kamrup Metropolitan District

On May 22, 2026, the respondent authorities served the petitioners with two orders simultaneously: one under Section 3(1) (Form ‘B’) for the requisition of their land for a drainage system around LGBI Airport, and another under Section 4(1) (Form ‘C’) directing them to surrender possession within 15 days

The petitioners challenged these orders via a writ petition, contending that the simultaneous service of both notices deprived them of their statutory right to appeal the requisition order to the State Government

1. Whether the simultaneous service of orders under Section 3(1) and Section 4(1) of the Assam Land (Requisition and Acquisition) Act, 1964, illegally deprives the landholder of the right to appeal under Section 3(3)

2. Whether the emergency and "speedy acquisition" powers under Section 9 of the Act justify bypassing the procedural requirements of Section 3 and Section 6

Section 3(1) empowers the State or an authorized person to requisition land for specific public purposes

Section 3(3) provides a substantive right to appeal a requisition order to the State Government within 30 days

Section 4(1) governs the power to take possession of requisitioned land

Section 6 vests the power to acquire requisitioned land solely in the State Government via notification in the Official Gazette

Section 9 provides for "speedy acquisition" but requires a prior or simultaneous decision under Section 6

The court underscored the legal distinction between "requisition" (temporary transfer of possession) and "acquisition" (permanent transfer of title)

The court found that when a Collector issues a requisition order under Section 3(1), Section 3(3) vests a substantive right in the landholder to appeal within 30 days to seek exemption

By serving the Section 4(1) possession order on the same day as the Section 3(1) requisition order, the authorities effectively neutralized this window for appeal

The court rejected the State’s argument that Section 9 allowed for such a shortcut; Section 9 relates to "speedy acquisition," yet no acquisition order under Section 6 had been published in the Official Gazette

Therefore, the procedural requirements of the 1964 Act were found to be infracted because the petitioners were not afforded the time to challenge the necessity of the requisition before being ordered to vacate

To balance the public interest (drainage construction) with the petitioners' rights, the court ordered the Section 4(1) possession order to be kept in abeyance. The petitioners were granted 15 days to file an appeal before the State Government; if filed, the possession order remains stayed pending the appeal's outcome. If no appeal is filed within 15 days, the possession order becomes effective. The court directed all parties to maintain status quo regarding the petitioners' specific plots until the appeal is decided.