WP(C) 9188/2003 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B.P. KATAKEY Heard Ms. Huda, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. J. Sarma, learne d State counsel appearing for the respondent Nos.1 to 5 and Mr. S.N. Sarma, lear ned Sr. counsel assisted by Mr. A.J. Das, learned counsel appearing for the resp ondent No.6. The petitioner by the present petition has challenged the order dated 01 .10.2003 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Lakhimpur (R.K.G. Branch) restoring the patta in the name of the respondent No.6 in respect of the land measuring 1 bigha 2 kathas 3 lechas covered by Dag No.957 of periodic patta No.516 of North Lakhimpur Town Part-I under Lakhimpur Mouja, which was earlier made Government l and vide order dated 18.12.1986. The petitioner has also prayed for a direction to the respondent authorities to allot the said land measuring 1 bigha 2 kathas 3 lechas pursuant to the agreement between the petitioner and the Government con tending inter alia that after the aforesaid land was made Government, the respon dent authority approached the petitioner for implementation of a scheme under th e Public Health and Engineering Department over the land belonging to the petiti oner measuring 1 bigha 2 kathas 3 lechas of land covered by Dag Nos.1015, 1017 a nd 955 of periodic patta No.285 of Part-I North Lakhimpur town in exchange of th e aforesaid Government land, which was subsequently restored in the name of the respondent No.6. It is the case of the petitioner that though for implementation of the s cheme under the Public Health and Engineering Department, Govt. of Assam, the la nd measuring 1 bigha 2 kathas 3 lechas initially covered by Dag No.957 of period ic patta No.516 of North Lakhimpur Town Part-I, which earlier belonged to the re spondent No.6, was identified, the scheme however was implemented over the land belonging to the petitioner as described above on condition that the aforesaid l and covered by Dag No.957 would be given to the petitioner in exchange of the la nd belonging to him over which the project would be implemented. It is also the case of the petitioner that subsequently the said land has not been given to the petitioner though the project has been implemented over the petitioner’s land a nd instead the Deputy Commissioner by the impugned order dated 01.10.2003 has re stored the said patta in the name of the respondent No.6 in respect of the land measuring 1 bigha 2 kathas 3 lechas covered by Dag No.957. Ms. Huda, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that since a decisi on was taken at the appropriate level for exchange of the land and the responden t authorities has acted upon such decision in implementing the project over the land belonging to the petitioner measuring 1 bigha 2 kathas 3 lechas instead of the aforesaid land in Dag No.957, which was Government land at the relevant poin t of time, the same ought to have been given to the petitioner. It has also been submitted that in any case the petitioner cannot be deprived from the use and e njoyment of the land belonging to him without following the due process of law i .e. without paying the compensation under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The le arned counsel, therefore, submits that in the event it is found that the land me asuring 1 bigha 2 kathas 3 lechas covered by Dag No.957 of periodic patta No.516 cannot be given to the petitioner in view of the restoration of the patta in th e name of the respondent No.6, the State respondents may be directed to initiate the proceeding under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and to pa y the compensation. Mr. Sarma, learned State counsel appearing for the respondent Nos.1 to 5 placing reliance on the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the Principal Secretar y to the Govt. of Assam in Revenue and Disaster Management Department has submit ted that the project in question has been implemented over the land measuring 1 bigha 1 ktha ‰ lecha covered by Dag Nos.1017 and 955 under periodic patta No.285 of North Lakhimpur Town belonging to the petitioner, though the petitioner clai med that such project was implemented over the land measuring 1 bigha 2 kathas 3 lechas. The learned counsel submits that in fact the petitioner has donated the land in exchange of the land covered by Dag No.957 pertaining to periodic patta No.516, which at the relevant point of time was Government land but subsequentl y the patta in respect of the said land was restored in favour of the respondent No.6. Mr. Sarma, therefore, submits that after restoration of the patta in resp ect of the said land in the name of the respondent No.6 there is no question of giving possession of the said land in favour of the petitioner. The learned Stat e counsel, however, has submitted that there is no record relating to the assess ment of the any compensation due to the petitioner in respect of the land measur ing 1 bigha 1 katha ‰ lecha covered by Dag Nos.1017 and 955 of periodic patta No .285 belonging to him, over which the project has been implemented. Mr. Sarma, learned Sr. counsel for the respondent No.6 has submitted tha t as the patta in respect of the aforesaid land measuring 1 bigha 2 kathas 3 lec has has been restored by the Deputy Commissioner by the order dated 01.10.2003, there cannot be any direction to handover the possession of the said land to the petitioner in exchange of the land belonging to him, over which the project has been implemented. It appears that at the relevant point of time the project under the Publ ic Health and Engineering Department was decided to be implemented over the land measuring 1 bigha 2 kathas 3 lechas covered by Dag No.957 of periodic patta No. 516 which was made Government. The respondent No.1 in the affidavit-in-oppositio n filed has admitted that the project in question has instead been implemented o ver the land measuring 1 bigha 1 katha ‰ lecha covered by Dag Nos.1017 and 955 u nder periodic patta No.285 of Part-I Noth Lakhimpur Town under Lakhimpur Mouja, belonging to the petitioner, with the understanding that the aforesaid land meas uring 1 bigha 2 kathas 3 lechas covered by Dag No.957 would be given to the peti tioner. It appears from the order dated 01.10.2003 passed by the Deputy Commissi oner that the patta in respect of 1 bigha 2 bighas 3 lechas of land covered by D ag No.516 has been restored in favour of the respondent No.6 for the reasons rec orded in the order passed and hence even if there was an agreement between the S tate and the petitioner for exchange of the said land such agreement in view of the changed circumstances cannot be directed to be given effect to. The petition er at the same time cannot be deprived from the use and enjoyment of the land be longing to him and over which the project has been implemented, without followin g the due process of law i.e. without initiating the proceeding under the Land A cquisition Act, 1894 and making payment of compensation. As noticed above, the r espondent No.1 in the affidavit-in-opposition admitted that the project in quest ion has been implemented over the patta land belonging to the petitioner. That being the position, the present petition is disposed of directing t he respondent Nos.1, 2 and 3 to initiate the proceeding under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 in respect of the land belonging to the petitione r, which has been used for implementation of the aforesaid project, as it is the stand of the learned State counsel appearing for the State respondents that aft er implementation of the project there is no question of handing over the posses sion of the land to the petitioner. Such proceeding shall be initiated by issuin g the notification under Section 4(1) of the Act within 3(three) months from tod ay. The entire exercise under the provisions of the said Act including the award to be passed shall be completed within 6(six) months from the date of issuance of the notification under Section 4(1) of the Act. In the event the petitioner i s not satisfied with the award that may be passed by the Collector, it is open t o him to pursue such legal remedy as is available to him under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. No costs.