THE COLLECTOR OF DIBRUGARH Vs. SRI S.P. RAJKHOWA AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The only question raised in this writ petition is, whether for the purpose of determining compensation under Sec. 12 of the Assam Fixation of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1956, the expression 'annual land revenue' will include surcharge and local rate payable for the estate.

(2.) An area of 757 B. 2 K. 9 Lechas owned by M/s. Dibrugarh Company Ltd. having been taken over as excess land under the Assam Fixation of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1956, hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' the Collector by his order dated 16.6.80 assessed the compensation under Sec. 12 of the Act at 25 times of the annual land revenue for 279 B. 2K. 16 Ls. and 50 times the land revenue for 477 B. 3K. 13Ls.; and on appeal under Sec. 31 of the Act, the District Judge, Dibrugarh in Misc. Appeal No. 2/81 by the impugned order dated 25.11.81, following an earlier decision in Misc. Appeal No. 5/76 (Sarojini Tea Company Vs. The Collector, Dibrugarh) , allowing the appeal, ordered that the Company was "entitled to compensation @ 50 times the Land Revenue, 50 times the Local Rates and 50 times the Land Revenue surcharge in respect of the area of 477B-3K-13Ls. and @ 25 times the Local Rates and 25 times the Land Revenue Surcharge in respect of the area of land measuring 279B-2K-17Ls.", and to interest at the rate of 21/2% per annum as laid down in Sec. 13 of the Act. Hence this petition by the Collector, of Dibrugarh.

(3.) Mr. N.M. Lahiri, the learned Advocate-General, Meghalaya, raises a preliminary objection submitting that the Collector, Dibrugarh has no locus standi to file this petition, inasmuch as it is the State Government who is aggrieved by the impugned order and not the Collector and as under Sec. 31 of the Act only a person aggrieved could prefer an appeal, the same principle should govern this writ petition as well. Mr. D.N. Choudhury, the learned Senior Govt. Advocate, Assam answering submitted that in the ceiling case the Collector was the pivot and not a busy body intermeddler; and that he was impleaded as a party respondent in the appeal before the District Judge; and that the law as to locus standi has of late been broadened so as to include even public interest litigation in S.P. Gupta Vs. Union of India, (1981) Supp. S.C.C. 57. Upon hearing both the counsels, we proceeded to hear on merit.