BENOY MAZUMDAR Vs. COLLECTOR OF CACHAR

JUDGEMENT

(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: