Assam's Plastic Park Stalls Over Decade-Old Land Compensation Dispute
A long-running land acquisition dispute in Assam reached a critical point when a landowner challenged the compensation process for a proposed plastic park. The case centred on whether a 2010 approval letter from the state government covered both the land valuation and the final award—or just the estimate. The disagreement delayed the project and led to fresh legal proceedings in the USA in 2012.
The dispute began on 04.08.2008, when the Assam government announced plans to acquire 1,166 bighas, 1 katha, and 14 lessas of land in Tinsukia district under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The land, part of Gillapukri tea estate, was earmarked for a plastic park. Assam Industrial Development Corporation Limited (AIDC) was named the nodal agency for the acquisition on 24.06.2009.
A formal declaration under Section 6(1) of the Act followed on 17.06.2009, initiating L.A Case No.1/2008. By 30.01.2010, the Deputy Commissioner and Collector of Tinsukia sought approval for the award proceedings and cost estimates. The Commissioner and Secretary to the Government of Assam responded on 05.03.2010 with a letter that later became the focal point of the dispute.
The landowner argued that the 05.03.2010 letter only authorised the estimate—not the final award—rendering the entire process invalid. The state government, however, maintained that the award had been legally completed within the two-year statutory window. Despite the disagreement, compensation of Rs. 4.95 crores was paid to the respondent on 08.04.2010. A review request was filed shortly after, on 05.05.2010.
Possession of the land was handed over to the Deputy Commissioner on 21.05.2010 and then transferred to AIDC on 11.06.2010. Yet the legal uncertainty persisted, eventually forcing the government to restart acquisition proceedings in the USA in 2012.
The case hinged on the interpretation of a single approval letter, leaving the landowner's compensation and the project's future in limbo. While the state insisted the 2010 award was valid, the challenge led to renewed acquisition efforts two years later. No broader legal precedent was set, as the dispute remained confined to this specific acquisition.
