STATE OF ASSAM Vs. RAMESHWAR AGARWALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) On October 24, 1957 Rameshwar Agarwala - herein after called 'the respondent' applied to the Deputy Commissioner, Lakhimpur, for settlement of a tea garden for "special cultivation of tea" By order dated March 11, l964 the Government of Assam permitted settlement of the tea garden for special tea cultivation on payment of Rs. 3,86,00 as premium. The respondent failed to pay the amount demanded. The State of Assam then put up the tea garden, for auction. The respondent moved a petition in the High Court of Assam for an order declaring that in fixing the amount of the premium at Rs. 3,86,008/- the State acted illegally and that the order was void and unenforceable at law because in fixing the amount of the premium the State acted without jurisdiction and the order directing auction of the tea garden for not depositing the amount demanded was also illegal. The High Court upheld the contention and ordered the State of Assam not to give effect to the order dated March 31, 1964 calling upon the respondent to pay the amount due within two months of the order and the order dated November 26, 1964 directing that the tea garden be put up for auction. With certificate granted by the High Court, the State of Assam has appealed to this Court.

(2.) The tea garden belonged to the State of Assam. The Government of Assam in the absence of any binding statutory provision, could settle the tea garden on such commercial terms it could reasonably obtain. The respondent applied to the Deputy Commissioner for settlement of the tea garden and requesting the State Government for early fixation of the amount of premium. When the premium was fixed by the Government the respondent protested, contending that the action of the State was illegal. Before the High Court it was contended by the respondent that the power of the State Government to fix the premium for which it could lease the tea garden was restricted by Rule 40 framed under the Assam Land Revenue Regulations. The Rule reads:

(3.) The reasons which persuaded the High Court to uphold the plea raised by the respondent may be set out in their own words: