Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2
PETITIONER:
HEMENDRA PRASAD BARUAH
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
THE COLLECTOR OF SIBSAGAR, ASSAM
DATE OF JUDGMENT22/07/1975
BENCH:
KRISHNAIYER, V.R.
BENCH:
KRISHNAIYER, V.R.
RAY, A.N. (CJ)
MATHEW, KUTTYIL KURIEN
FAZALALI, SYED MURTAZA
CITATION:
1976 AIR 908 1976 SCR (1) 68
1975 SCC (2) 322
ACT:
Assam Land (Requisition and Acquisition) Act, 1948
(Assam Act XXV o; 1948) Section 7(1A)-Acquisition of land
lying unused-Appellant, if entitled to larger scale of
compensation.
HEADNOTE:
100 bights of land lying unused were requisitioned by
Government to settle landless people. The appellant, a tea
planter, willingly surrendered the same. But, when the State
proceeded to acquire the land under s. 7(1A) of’ 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. ’The Courts below concurrently held
against him.
Dismissing the appeal,
^
HELD: The simple statutory test that settles the issue
is lo 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
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 on the basis that the land in
question is fallow. The High Court has, therefore, rightly
held that s. 7(1A) appropriately applied to this case. [68H-
69B]
JUDGMENT:
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1264 of
1969.
Appeal by certificate from the 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. H. Chowdhury and S. N. Chowdhury, for the respondent
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
KRISHNA IYER, J.-The concurrent conclusions of fact
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2
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 reasoning, we are persuaded to affirm the
finding.
100 bighas 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 lying unused. Later,
the State proceeded to acquire the land under s.7 (1A) 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 proceeded under s.7(1A) or
the larger one stipulated 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
69
hand. if it is ten garden, the quantum is as under s. 23 of
the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. This decisive factor lends
itself to easy decision, 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 statements 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 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.
70