- (1.) There was a tea estate in an area of 1617 bighas of land in the District of Kami-up in the State of Assam. That tea estate was requisitioned under the Defence of India Act, 1962 by the government of Assam and the Defence Department of the Union was put in possession of it in the year 1963. Derequisitioning of a portion of that tea estate having taken place immediately thereafter, the actual tea estate which continued in possession of the Defence Department of the Union, was reduced to an extent of 1435 bighas of land only. However, that tea estate which was not released from requisition before 10/1/1968, as from that date, became a property which was deemed to have been requisitioned under the Requisitioning and Acquisition of Immovable Property Act, 1952, to be referred to hereinafter as 'the Act', by operation of Section 25 of the Act. Even thereafter, the tea estate continued to be in occupation of the Defence Department of the Union and used as before, for its defence purposes. But, the compensation payable under the Act to Appellant 1 for its requisitioned tea estate remained unsettled since no agreement was 'reached on the amountof such compensation. It appears that Appellant 1 through its Director, Appellant 2, moved the Deputy Commissioner, District of Kamrup, who was the competent authority under the Act, for referring the matter of determination of the just amount of compensation payable for its tea estate to an Arbitrator, required to be appointed thereunder. Subsequently, Shri D. C. Sangma, District Judge, Land Acquisition Department, Assam, who was appointed as an Arbitrator by the government of Assam, determined by his award dated 3/10/1972, the amount of compensation payable to Appellant 1 for its requisitioned tea estate to be a sum of Rs. 49,08,786.50, thus:2. Annual recurring compensation for :3. Annual recurring compensation for 153 bighas, I khata and 10 lechas at Rs. 350. 00 per bigha for 9 years (from 8/3/1963 to 11/5/1972 4. Annual recurring compensation for 124 bighas, 0 khata and 2 lechas at Rs. 300. 00 per bigha for 9 years (from 8/3/1963 to 11/5/1972 5. Annual recurring compensation for 1157 bighas, I khata and 10 lechas at Rs. 125. 00 per bigha for 9 years (from 8/3/1963 to 11/5/1972 6. Annual recurring compensation for 56, 548 tea bushes at Rs. 4. 00 per tea bush for 9 years (from 8/3/1963 to 11/5/1972 7. Interest at 6 per cent per annum on total amount of compensation from 11/5/1972 till final payment.
(2.) Feeling that the said award of the Arbitrator was excessive, the Defence Department of the Union through the Deputy Commissioner,kami-up filed an appeal against it in the Gauhati High court. That appeal was partly allowed by the High court, in that, it set aside the award of the Arbitrator except with regard to the compensation fixed under item 1 in the award and remitted the case for being decided afresh by the Arbitrator, by following the guidelines given in its judgment. But the appellants, who felt that the guidelines of the High court given in its judgment and required to be followed by the Arbitrator in determining the compensation payable for the requisitioned property the tea estate, were not in consonance with the principles specified in the provisions of the Act, have presented this appeal by special leave.
(3.) It was submitted by the learned counsel for the appellants that the judgment under appeal, although is a remand order and directs the Arbitrator to make a fresh determination of compensation for the first appellant's requisitioned tea estate, the guidelines contained therein for determination of compensation (i) that in computing recurring compensation payable for the tea estate, income from tea bushes, fruit-bearing plants or trees or even building in such estate, which existed at the time of requisition, shall not be taken into account, if they were destroyed after requisitioning; (ii) that in computing recurring compensation payable for the tea estate, the use to which the land of the estate is put by the occupant could alone be taken into consideration; and (iii) that the compensation payable for tea bushes, fruit bearing plants and trees growth, buildings etc. in the tea estate which were likely to be destroyed shall be their one-time lump sum value; not being in consonance with the relevant principles specified in the Act, were unsustainable. It was also submitted by the learned counsel for the appellants and rightly, that the appellants will have no objection for setting aside that portion of the judgment of the High court by which a lump sum compensation awarded by the Arbitrator for fruit-bearing plants, trees and other wild growth in the tea estate was affirmed, if such award of separate compensation for plants and trees and other wild growth in a tea estate separately, is found by us to be unwarranted by the provisions of the Act.;