Authority: Gauhati High Court (High Court of Assam, Nagaland, Mizoram and Arunachal Pradesh)
Order Date: 02.11.2026
Case Overview
- Petitioner: Bhadreswar Roy, S/O Late Daya Chand Roy, Village Singimari, P.O. Nayagaon, P.S. Abhayapuri, District Bongaigaon, Assam, PIN 783384.
- Respondents:
1. State of Assam and five others represented by the Commissioner and Secretary to the Government of Assam, Department of Revenue and D.M. (LR), Dispur, Guwahati.
2. National Highway and Infrastructure Development Corporation Limited (NHIDCL) represented by the Commissioner, Ministry of Roads Transport and Highway, Government of India, New Delhi.
3. Dy. General Manager (P), NHIDCL, PMU Dhubri, P.O. and District Dhubri, Assam, PIN 783301.
4. Deputy Commissioner, Bongaigaon, P.O. and District Bongaigaon, Assam, PIN 783381.
5. Additional Deputy Commissioner (Revenue), Bongaigaon, P.O. and District Bongaigaon, Assam, PIN 783381.
6. Circle Officer, Srijangram Revenue Circle, P.O. Abhayapuri, District Bongaigaon, Assam, PIN 783384.
- Advocates: petitioner – Mr. K C Roy; respondent No.1 – Mr. A. Bhattacharyya (Government Advocate, Assam); respondents No.2 & 3 – Mr. R. K. Talukdar (Standing Counsel for NHIDCL).
- Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Arun Dev Choudhury.
- Nature of Petition: Writ petition (WP(C)/6442/2022) alleging that the authorities intended to acquire the petitioner’s land for widening/improvement of the highway near the Tulungia Jogighopa Bridge Approach Section of the Bilasipara‑Guwahati road without conducting a proper land survey.
- Petitioner’s Grievance: Claim that Dag No. 102 and Dag No. 27, belonging to the petitioner, were being taken over without proper verification.
- Respondent NHIDCL’s Affidavit: Asserted that a verification survey was carried out; a joint survey report was submitted; according to that report, Dag No. 102 was not found in the Land Acquisition Plan (LAP) and Dag No. 27 lay beyond the proposed Right of Way as per the LAP. Consequently, NHIDCL contended that no land from these Dag numbers had been acquired for the project.
- Petitioner’s Response: No reply affidavit was filed; petitioner did not appear on the call.
Final Outcome
- The court observed that the petitioner failed to appear and had not contested the respondent’s affidavit. Consequently, the writ petition was dismissed for non‑prosecution, and the land acquisition process for the highway project remains unaffected.
Topics: Land Acquisition, High Court Order