Assam Land Requisition Act | Landowner's Appeal Must Be Decided Before Possession Is Taken: Gauhati High Court
The Gauhati High Court has held that the right of appeal under Section 3(3) of the Assam Land (Requisition and Acquisition) Act, 1964 is a substantive right and cannot be rendered illusory by taking possession of the land before the appeal is decided.Justice Manish Choudhury observed, “If a statute provides such a right to appeal, such right to appeal is not to be illusory. A right to...
The Gauhati High Court has held that the right of appeal under Section 3(3) of the Assam Land (Requisition and Acquisition) Act, 1964 is a substantive right and cannot be rendered illusory by taking possession of the land before the appeal is decided.
Justice Manish Choudhury observed, “If a statute provides such a right to appeal, such right to appeal is not to be illusory. A right to appeal under Section 3[3] is a substantive right afforded to a landowner or a person interested in the land sought to be requisitioned.”
The observation came in a writ petition filed by Mouchak Agro LLP challenging an order issued under Section 4(1) of the 1964 Act in respect of a portion of land at Village Rajabali Bagan, Morangi Revenue Circle, Golaghat.
The petitioner, being the owner in occupation of the land, had been directed to surrender or deliver possession within ten days for setting up an Industrial Estate of Numuligarh Refinery Limited.
The order was preceded by an order under Section 3(1) of the Act, by which the land had been requisitioned for the said purpose.
The petitioner preferred an appeal before the State Government under Section 3(3), contending that the conditions required for passing an order under Section 3(1) were not present and that the purpose for which the requisition order was passed did not fall within the scope and ambit of the provision.
It was contended that without a final decision of the State Government in the appeal, the authorised officer could not have issued the subsequent order under Section 4(1).
The State informed the Court that the appeal filed by the petitioner was still pending and had not been disposed of.
The High Court noted that where an order under Section 3(1) is passed by a person authorised by the State Government, the person affected by such order has a right to prefer an appeal before the State Government under Section 3(3).
The Court further distinguished between requisition and acquisition and observed that in case of acquisition, title passes to the acquiring authority along with possession, whereas in requisition, title remains with the owner and possession goes to the requisitioning authority.
“Whereas acquisition involves an element of permanency and finality involving a transfer of title; the concept of requisition is merely to take over the domain or control over the property without acquiring the rights of ownership and it is ordinarily understood that requisition by its very nature is of temporary duration.”
The Court noted that the appeal under Section 3(3) was admittedly yet to be disposed of and that the decision of the State Government in the appeal would be final.
“Admittedly, the appeal under Section 3[3] is yet to be disposed of by the State Government, whose decision is going to be final, this Court is of the considered view that since the appeal is pending, it is not be proper to continue with the present writ proceedings in a parallel manner.”
It further observed that taking over possession before disposal of the appeal could affect the petitioner's rights even if the appeal was subsequently decided in its favour.
“The Court is the considered view that if the Authorised Officer on the basis of the Order passed under Section 4[1] of the 1964 Act takes over possession under Section 4[1] of the 1964 Act before the appeal is decided and changes the nature and character of the parcel of land then the right of the petitioner is going to be impacted, even if the Order to be passed by the State Government in the appeal comes subsequently in favour of the appellant.”
Accordingly, the Court held that, to balance the equities, the order passed under Section 4(1) directing delivery of possession was required to be kept in abeyance till the State Government decided the pending appeal.
“In the above obtaining fact situation, this Court is of the considered view that to balance the equities, the Order dated 28.07.2026 passed under Section 4[1] in Form B is to be kept in abeyance till the decision of the State Government in the appeal, which is presently pending before it.”
The State Government was directed to dispose of the appeal as expeditiously as possible after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.
The Court further directed that the order under Section 4(1) would abide by the decision taken in the appeal and would remain in abeyance till then.
The parties were also directed to maintain status quo with respect to the land till the appeal was decided.
Case Title: Mouchak Agro LLP v. State of Assam & Ors.
LL Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Gau) 174
Case No.: WP(C)/4268/2026