- (1.) This appeal by special leave arises from a very elaborate and well-considered judgment of the division bench of the Assam High court made on 26/2/1982 in First Appeal No. 29 of 1965. The admitted position is that on 13/2/1959, 60 bighas of land was requisitioned under the Assam Land (Requisition and Acquisition) Act, 1948 (25 of 1948. Ultimately, by publication of the notification under Section 8 (1-A) of the Act the land was acquired for the public purpose for settlement of the refugees from Bangladesh. The Land Acquisition Officer applying the provisions of Section 7 (I-A) of the Act determined the compensation @ Rs. 297.69 rounded off to Rs. 300. 00 per bigha. On appeal, the division bench has confirmed the same but awarded interest at 6% from the date of taking possession till date of payment. Thus, this appeal by special leave.
(2.) Shri Choudhary, learned counsel for the appellant, contended that the land was taken on grant from the government on 8-8-1872 for special cultivation. Therefore, the compensation was required to be determined under Section 23 (1 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (I of 1894 (for short, "the Act") as envisaged under Section 7 (1 of the Act. As specified in Ss. (1 of Section 7 of the Act, his contention focuses mainly on the question whether the land is lying fallow or is for special cultivation. The learned counsel contends that the courts below have not properly understood the contents of the documents and interpreted the law in that perspective and, therefore, this court is required to go into that question. He further contended that though Section 7 (1-A) of the Act which has been specifically incorporated in the Assam Land (Requisition and Acquisition) Act, 1964 (15 of 1964 reiterates what is stated in Section 11 thereof, it is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. In support thereof, he places strong reliance on a dissenting judgment dated 28/9/1981 of one of the Judges of a full bench of five Judges in CR No. 28 of 1967 and batch. Shri Chaudhary, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the State, placing reliance on the judgment of this court in Hemendra Prasad Baruah v. Collector of Sibsagar, contended that the controversy has been concluded by the said judgment in which it was held that for uncultivated or fallow land Section 7 (1 stands applicable. In view of the respective contentions, the question that arises for consideration is what is the nature of the land acquired
(3.) The Reference court raised Issue 3 in that behalf and considered the question elaborately. It held thus: "From the perusal of Ext. 121 find that there are certain limitations even though the lands are redeemed grants. I do not find anything in support of 692 the claimant at pages XXV and XXVI of Introduction of Assam Land Revenue Manual, Vol. I, that the lands acquired were not grains but fee simple estate pure and simple. It is an undisputed fact that the acquired lands were assessed with revenue by Assam Act No. XXIV of 1948 which Act was passed before the passing of the Assam Land (Requisition and Acquisition) Act, 1948. It may be true that the words 'special cultivation' might not appear in the rules passed before 1876 but that does not go to show that the acquired lands were sold to the company as fee simple estate, pure and simple and by virtue of that the company became the proprietor of land as like that of a fee simple estate. These rules passed in different times are embodied in the Assam Land Revenue Manual and those rules form a part of this book. Under these circumstances, I am convinced that the acquired lands are grants for special cultivation. From the evidence placed above, I am not in a position to accept the contention of the claimant that there were thatch, shed trees and seedlings etc. when the lands were requisitioned. From the evidence it is also found that even seedlings were sometimes raised on the slope of the tilla by the garden labourers on payment of rent to the garden. So this cannot be construed as that lands were utilised by the garden for the purpose for which those were given. The claimant has failed to show with any documentary evidence that paddy and thatch were raised in some portion of the acquired lands before the lands were requisitioned. On the other hand, the objector's witnesses, some of whom are official witnesses, said that at the time of requisition the lands were lying patty. I, therefore, find no substance in the argument that the lands were not fallow, uncultivated or not utilised at the time when these were requisitioned. ";