Court directs Assam Government to expeditiously decide appeal of Mouchak Agro LLP against requisition of 211 Bighas of land for Numaligarh Refinery Industrial Estate; orders status quo till appeal is disposed of
The Gauhati High Court on August 20, 2026, delivered a significant ruling protecting the statutory right of appeal of a landowner whose 211 Bighas of land in Golaghat district was requisitioned for setting up an Industrial Estate of Numaligarh Refinery Limited. Justice Manish Choudhury held that when an appeal against a requisition order is pending before the State Government, any subsequent order directing the surrender of possession must be kept in abeyance until the appeal is decided.
The case involved Mouchak Agro LLP, the owner and occupant of a parcel of land measuring 211 Bighas 1 Katha 19 Lessas situated at Village Rajabali Bagan, Morangi Revenue Circle, District Golaghat, Assam. The District Commissioner of Golaghat, acting as the authorised officer under the Assam Land (Requisition and Acquisition) Act, 1964, had issued a requisition order on May 6, 2026, under Section 3(1) of the Act, requisitioning the land for setting up the Industrial Estate of Numaligarh Refinery Limited.
Aggrieved by this order, Mouchak Agro LLP exercised its statutory right and filed an appeal before the State Government on May 29, 2026, under Section 3(3) of the 1964 Act, contending that the conditions necessary for requisition under Section 3(1) were not satisfied. However, while this appeal remained undecided, the authorised officer proceeded to issue a further order on July 28, 2026, under Section 4(1) of the Act, directing the petitioner to surrender or deliver possession of the land within ten days.
It was this subsequent order that prompted Mouchak Agro LLP to approach the High Court through a writ petition. The petitioner's counsel, Mr. D. Senapati, argued that the authorised officer could not have issued the possession order while the appeal challenging the very foundation of the requisition remained pending and undecided.
The Standing Counsel for the Revenue and Disaster Management Department, upon seeking instructions from the State Government, confirmed before the Court that the appeal filed on May 29, 2026, was indeed still pending and had not been disposed of.
Justice Choudhury, in his order, made several important observations on the nature of requisition and acquisition under the 1964 Act. The Court drew a clear distinction between the two concepts, noting that in acquisition, both title and possession pass to the acquiring authority, whereas in requisition, only possession is transferred while the title remains with the owner. The Court emphasized that requisition is ordinarily temporary in nature and referred to Section 8 of the Act, which provides that requisitioned land that is not subsequently acquired must revert to the owner in as good a condition as when possession was taken.
The Court placed significant reliance on the Full Bench decision of the Gauhati High Court in Prabhat Chandra Deka v. K.C. Baruah (AIR 1960 Assam 1), which had interpreted an identically worded provision of the predecessor 1948 Act. That decision established that when a person interested files an appeal against a requisition order, the State Government must act judicially in deciding the controversy and cannot treat its appellate power as a mere subjective discretion.
Justice Choudhury reasoned that the right of appeal under Section 3(3) is a substantive right that cannot be rendered illusory. The Court observed that if the authorised officer were permitted to take over possession and change the nature and character of the land before the appeal is decided, the rights of the petitioner would be irreparably prejudiced, even if the State Government subsequently allowed the appeal.
"To balance the equities," the Court ordered that the possession order dated July 28, 2026, shall remain in abeyance until the State Government decides the pending appeal. The Court directed the State Government to dispose of the appeal as expeditiously as possible after affording the appellant an opportunity of hearing. The decision in the appeal is to be communicated to the petitioner immediately upon being rendered.
Additionally, the Court directed all parties to maintain status quo as existing on the date of the order with respect to the entire parcel of land until the appeal is decided. The writ petition was disposed of without any order as to costs.
The judgment carries significant implications for land requisition proceedings in Assam, establishing that authorities cannot circumvent the statutory appellate process by rushing to take possession while appeals remain pending. It reinforces the principle that procedural safeguards embedded in statutes must be given their full effect and not be defeated through executive action.
Bottom Line :
Assam Land (Requisition and Acquisition) Act, 1964 - When appeal under Section 3(3) against order of requisition under Section 3(1) is pending before State Government, subsequent order under Section 4(1) directing surrender/delivery of possession is liable to be kept in abeyance till decision of appeal, so that statutory right of appeal does not become illusory.
Statutory Provision(s): Section 2(d), Section 3(1), Section 3(2), Section 3(3), Section 4(1), Section 4(2), Section 4(3), Section 8 of the Assam Land (Requisition and Acquisition) Act, 1964; Rule 4, Rule 5, Rule 11 of the Assam Land (Requisition and Acquisition) Rules, 1964; Assam Co-operative Societies Act, 1949; Companies Act, 1956
Mouchak Agro LLP. v. State of Assam, (Gauhati) : Law Finder Doc id # 2982738
