WP(C) 5723/2009 BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AMITAVA ROY HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.GOSWAMI (Amitava Roy, J) Heard Ms B Goyal, learned State counsel. In compliance of the order dated 14.3.2011, the District & Sessions Judg e & Chairman, District Legal Services Authority, Nagaon has submitted a report f ollowing his interactions with Sri Jiten Buragohain, father of Ms. Jupita Burago hain on the issues raised in her letter dated 26.11.2009 on which the instant su o motu action was taken by this Court. In this letter it was alleged in essence that on 14.11.2009 a few officers of Nagaon District Administration along with a posse of 40/50 policemen being accompanied by some officers of Punj Loyd Compan y had trespassed into her/ their house, demolished the same and had dis-possesse d them from their homestead in the name of laying a road in the area. Torture on her parents was also alleged. The Deputy Commissioner, Nagaon in his affidavit while admitting that a plot of land measuring 15 Lesssas (Residential) out of 0B-1K-15Ls pertaining to Dag No. 27, P.P. No. 89 of Rani Pukhuri village under Kaki Mouza had been acqui red vide L.A. Case No. 58/06 for N.H.- 4 Laning purpose under the provisions of the National Highways Act, 1956 (for short, hereinafter referred to as ’the Act’ ), has further stated that an amount of ‘7,02,058/- by way of compensation for t he land, building and the zirat standing thereon had been awarded to the father of the complainant named hereinabove. The affidavit discloses that the estimates under Section 3(G) of the Act determining the valuation of the acquired land in cluding the plot of the complainant’s father was sanctioned on 17.1.2007 after p ublication of notice in two local newspapers (English and vernacular) inviting c laims/ objections from the persons interested in the land to be acquired. The d eponent has affirmed that the complainant’s father Jiten Buragohiain did neither submit any objection before the Deputy Commissioner, Nagaon on the amount of co mpensation awarded nor did he collect the same. The answering respondent, howeve r, has admitted the eviction operation on the land so acquired but has asserted that the same was undertaken after due and prior notice to all concerned includi ng the father of the complainant. The allegation of torture on the parents of th e complainant has been categorically denied. The respondent No.5, the Project Director, Nagaon, National Highway Auth ority of India in his affidavit has endorsed the acquisition of the land involve d under the provisions of the Act. While denying the allegation of torture as ma de by the complainant, this deponent has asserted that the procedure for acquisi tion of the concerned land was undertaken in strict compliance of the provisions of the Act and was completed far back in the year 2007. While pointing out that the acquisition was necessary for the purpose of the expansion work of N.H. 37 under the East-West Corridor Project, the deponent has underlined that the posse ssion thereof was to be obtained through the Collector of the concerned District . That an amount of ‘ 7,02,058/- had been awarded for the land of the complainan t/ her parents has been reiterated. It has been pointed out in particular that n o step has been taken either by the complainant or by her parents seeking enhanc ement of the amount of compensation awarded. A perusal of the report of the District & Sessions Judge & Chairman, Dis trict Legal Services Authority, Nagaon reveals the following features : i) The complainant’s father Sri Jiten Buragohain has admitted that an amoun t of ‘ 7,02,000/- though had been offered to him as compensation for acquisitio n of the land, he has not accepted the same as he is not satisfied with the quan tum. ii) The District & Sessions Judge & Chairman, District Legal Services Author ity, Nagaon has advised him that if he is dis-satisfied with the amount of compe nsation it was open to him to file an appropriate application under Section 3(G) (5) of the Act before the Arbitrator appointed for the purpose. iii) The complainant’s father on being so advised has expressed his unwilling ness to prefer such application before the Arbitrator because of his family prob lems. iv) The complainant’s father, however, has admitted that meanwhile he has wr itten a letter to the Arbitrator claiming higher compensation but has not receiv ed any reply thereto. v) The complainant’s father Sri Jiten Buragohain is a Lecturer of Mathemati cs in Lanka College earning a monthly salary of ‘ 50,000/-. vi) The District & Sessions Judge & Chairman, District Legal Services Author ity, Nagaon has advised him to follow up his letter with an application accompan ied by supporting documents to substantiate his claim for higher compensation un der Section 3(G)(5) of the Act. On a consideration of the materials laid before us and upon hearing Ms G oyal, we are of the view that no further action by this Court in the present pro ceeding is called for. It is, therefore, closed. The Registry would dispatch a copy of this order to the District & Sessi ons Judge & Chairman, District Legal Services Authority, Nagaon who, in turn, wo uld cause it to be served on the complainant’s father Sri Jiten Buragohain at hi s address.