HEMENDRA PRASAD BARUAH versus THE COLLECTOR OF SIBSAGAR, ASSAM on 22 July 1975

HEMENDRA PRASAD BARUAH

\'.

THE COLLECTOR OF SIBSAGAR, ASSAM July 22, 1975

[A. N. RAY, C.J., K. K. MATHEW, V. R. KRISHNA IYER AND

S. M. FAZAL ALI, JJ.)

Assa1n Land (Requisition and Acquisition) Act, 1948 (Assam Act XXV of I948) Section 1(1A)-Acqulsition df land !Ying unused-Appellant, if entit~.i to larger scale of co111pensation.

100 bighas of land lying unused were requisitioned by Government to settle landless people. The appellant, a tea planter, willingly surrendered the same. But, \Vhen the s_tate proceeded to acquire the land under s. 7 ( lA) ot' the Assam Land (Requisition and Acquisition) Act, 1948 he disputed the payment of lesser scale of compensation prescribed under s. 7(1A) of the Act. 'fhe Courts below concurrently held against him.

Dismissing the appeal,

HELD : The simple statutory test that settles the issue is to find out whether the land acquired is lying fallow or uncultivated. If it is, a small compen-isation alone is awardable, as laid down in s. 7(1A) of the Act. On the other hand, if it is tea garden, the quantum is as under s. 23 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. Plethora of evidence adduced in this case clearly proceeds o-n the basis that the land in question is fallow. The High Court has, therefore, rightly held that s. 7(IA) appropriately applied to this case. [68H-69B] CrvIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 1264 of CrvIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil 1969.

Appeal by certificate from thq judgment and order dated the 12th Feb., 1968 of the High Court of Assam and Nagaland at Gauhati in First Appeal No. 21 of 1963.

D. Mookherjee and S. K. Nandy, for the appellant.

M. ll. Chowdhury and S. N. Chowdhury, for the respondent.

The Judgment of the Conrt was delivered by KRISHNA IYER, J .-The concnrrent conclusions of fact reached by both the courts below regarding the quantum of compensation payable to the appellant on the acquisition of his land for •a public purpose by the State are assailed by Shri D. Mukherjee before us on the ground that the amount is grossly inadequate. Having heard him in the light of the High Court's reasonings, we are persuaded to affirm the finding. 100 bii;!ras of land belonging to the appellant (a Tea Planter) were first requisitioned by Government to settle landless people and the owner 'gladly' agreed to surrender the area which, on his own showing, was lymg unused. Later, the State proceeded to acquire the land under s.7 (lA) of the Assam Land (Requisition and Acquisition) Act, 1948 (Assam Act XXV of 1948) . The sole dispute turns on whether the lesser scale of compensation prescribed under s.7(1A) or the larger one stipu1'ated under s.7(1) is attracted to the situation. The simple statutory test that settles the issue is to find out whether the land acquired is lying fallow or uncultivated. If it is. a small compensation alone is awardable, as laid down in s.7(1A) of the Act. On the other A

•

B

-

C

D

E

-

F

G t

H

-

-

A

hand. if it is ten garlien, the quantum is as under s. 23 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. This decisive factor lends itself to easy deci-sion, because a plethora of evidence, to most of which the appellant is a party, proceeds on the basis that the land in question is fallow. The High Court has collected and considered the prior sllltements and other materials leading to the reasonable holding that s.7(1A) appropriately applied to this case. It follows that the appeal has no merit and B deserves to be dismissed.

We order both parties to bear their respective costs. Subject to this direction, the -appeal is dismissed.

V.M.K.

Appeal dismissed.