Article 300A & Land Acquisition Act | Unlawful Possession Without Valid Acquisition or Compensation Triggers Land Restoration & Requisition Rent: Gauhati HC

The Gauhati High Court has affirmed that prolonged state occupation of private land without valid acquisition or payment of compensation entitles the original pattadars to both the return of the land and payment of accrued requisition rent. This judgment reinforces the principle that possession without legal authority cannot extinguish proprietary rights, even after decades of state use.

Background & Facts

The Dispute

The petitioners, six descendants of late Matilal Bhar, claim ownership of land measuring 2 bighas 14 kathas and 12 lechas, covered by Dag No. 288/293 and Patta No. 115/117 in Village Siddeswar Part-II, District Cachar, Assam. The land was originally requisitioned by the Deputy Commissioner, Cachar on 26.11.1964 under Section 3(1) of the Assam Land (Requisition and Acquisition) Act, 1964, for use by the Border Roads Organisation (BRO) as an 'A' Company Headquarters. The land was subsequently handed over to the 112 RCC (GREF), a unit under the Ministry of Defence.

Key Facts

• The petitioners are pattadars by inheritance from their father, late Matilal Bhar, whose name appears on the original patta
• Requisition rent was paid to Matilal Bhar until 05.08.2005, after which no further payments were made
• A land acquisition proceeding was initiated under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 via Notification LA 6/2002-2003
• Declaration under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was issued on 21.06.2013
• The GREF deposited Rs. 6,36,655/- as compensation with the Deputy Commissioner, Cachar on 08.04.2008
• No payment of this compensation has been made to the petitioners or their predecessors
• On 16.12.2014, the land was handed over by GREF to the Public Works Department (PWD), NH Division, Silchar, for road construction
• On 27.02.2019, the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Cachar, directed the PWD to vacate the land and return it to the pattadars, noting that GREF had relinquished possession
• The PWD responded on 16.12.2015, acknowledging receipt of the land but stating no records existed regarding pattadar ownership or relinquishment

Procedural History

• 26.11.1964: Land requisitioned by Deputy Commissioner, Cachar under R.C. No. 8/L/1964-65
• 05.08.2005: Last payment of requisition rent made to the petitioners’ father
• 2002-2003: Land acquisition proceedings initiated under LA 6/2002-2003
• 08.04.2008: GREF deposited Rs. 6,36,655/- as compensation with Deputy Commissioner
• 16.12.2014: Land handed over by GREF to PWD
• 27.02.2019: Additional Deputy Commissioner directs PWD to return land to pattadars
• 16.12.2015: PWD acknowledges receipt of land but claims no ownership records
• 19.03.2022: Writ Petition (WP(C)/1055/2022) filed before Gauhati High Court
• 19.03.2026: Judgment pronounced by Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kardak Ete

Relief Sought

The petitioners sought:

• Return of the land measuring 2 bighas 14 kathas and 12 lechas
• Payment of outstanding requisition rent from 06.08.2005 until possession is restored
• Direction to the authorities to disburse the deposited compensation amount of Rs. 6,36,655/-

The Legal Issue

The central question was whether the prolonged, unauthorised possession of private land by state authorities - without valid acquisition under law or payment of compensation or requisition rent - entitles the original pattadars to reclaim the land and receive arrears of rent, even where a compensation amount has been deposited but not disbursed.

Arguments Presented

For the Petitioner

Mr. P.K. Deka, Advocate, argued that:

• The petitioners are lawful pattadars with inherited rights over the land
• Requisition was temporary and ceased to be valid after the initiation of acquisition proceedings
• No valid acquisition was completed under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, as compensation was never paid
• The deposit of Rs. 6,36,655/- with the Deputy Commissioner does not equate to payment
• Continuous possession without legal basis constitutes unlawful occupation
• The petitioners are entitled to return of land and payment of rent from 2005 onwards

For the Respondent

Ms. A. Gayan, CGC, for the Union and GREF, contended that:

• Acquisition proceedings were initiated and compensation was deposited as directed
• GREF had no role after depositing the amount and handing over the land
• The petitioners’ remedy lies with the Deputy Commissioner, not GREF
• No evidence was produced to prove non-payment of rent

Ms. M. Das, PWD Counsel, stated that:

• PWD is merely in possession as a transferee
• The petitioners must approach the competent authority with proof of ownership and claim
• PWD cannot unilaterally return land without legal direction

The Court's Analysis

The Court observed that the petitioners’ ownership as pattadars was not disputed. The state’s possession since 1964 was initially lawful under requisition, but requisition rent ceased after 2005. The initiation of acquisition proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 did not validate the acquisition, as the mandatory requirement of payment of compensation was never fulfilled.

"The deposit of compensation with the Deputy Commissioner does not discharge the state’s obligation to pay the landowner. Payment, not deposit, is the legal requirement."

The Court noted that the GREF, having relinquished possession in 2014-15, could not claim continued liability. The PWD, as the current possessor, held the land without any legal title or acquisition order. The failure of the state to produce records of acquisition or payment, despite repeated opportunities, was deemed fatal to its defence.

The Court distinguished between requisition (temporary, rent-based) and acquisition (permanent, compensation-based). Since no valid acquisition was completed, the state’s possession became unlawful. The deposited amount of Rs. 6,36,655/-, though assessed as compensation, remained unutilised and unclaimed. The Court held that this amount could be treated as arrears of requisition rent, given the prolonged deprivation of land without lawful authority.

The Court further emphasized that the state cannot retain possession indefinitely without following due process. The petitioners’ right to property under Article 300A of the Constitution was not extinguished by mere lapse of time or administrative inaction.

The Verdict

The petitioners succeeded. The Court directed:

• The deposited amount of Rs. 6,36,655/- shall be paid to the petitioners as arrears of requisition rent
• The petitioners shall file an application before the Deputy Commissioner, Cachar, within 20 days seeking payment of rent
• The Deputy Commissioner shall decide the application within two months
• The land shall be returned to the petitioners within three months of the above decision, provided it is not required for a public purpose
• If the land is required for public purpose, the authorities may acquire it only by following due process under law

What This Means For Similar Cases

Unpaid Compensation Is Not Acquisition

• Practitioners must argue that deposit of compensation with a treasury or officer does not satisfy statutory payment obligations
• Actual disbursement to the landowner is mandatory under Section 31 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894
• Failure to pay renders acquisition incomplete, regardless of declaration under Section 6

Requisition Rent Survives Post-Acquisition Initiation

• Requisition rent continues to accrue until acquisition is completed and compensation paid
• If acquisition fails, the landowner retains the right to claim rent for the entire period of unlawful possession
• The state cannot evade liability by claiming transfer of possession to another agency

Administrative Inaction Cannot Override Property Rights

• Courts will not permit the state to benefit from its own delay or non-compliance

• Burden of proof lies on the state to demonstrate lawful acquisition

• Where records are not produced despite court directions, adverse inference will be drawn

• Petitioners in similar cases may now seek return of land and payment of rent as a matter of right, not discretion

• Always demand production of acquisition records and payment receipts

• File applications for payment of arrears under Section 31 even if acquisition is pending

• Use Article 300A to assert right to property against prolonged unlawful possession