SONAPUR TEA CO. (P) LTD. Vs. THE COLLECTOR & DIRECTOR OF LAND REQUISITION, ACQUISITION AND REFORM, ASSAM, GAUHATI AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, M/s Sonapur Tea Company Pvt. Ltd., is engaged in the production, cultivation and manufacture of tea at its tea estate at Sonapur in the district of Kamrup. A ceiling case under the provisions of the Assam Fixation of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1956, hereinafter the Act, was initiated against it in 1973 pursuant to the amendment of the Act by Assam Fixation of Ceiling on Land Holdings (Amendment) Act, 1971 which brought within the fold of the Act land held for special cultivation beyond that which was used for the purpose of tea cultivation and purposes ancillary thereto. After the initiation of the aforesaid case numbered as Ceiling Case No.41/73, a draft statement was prepared inviting objection of the petitioner, if any. The petitioner submitted its objection. The Additional Deputy Commissioner vide his order dated 28.2.75 rejected most of the objections and fixed an area of 7650B 4K 16L for acquisition under the Act. Feeling aggrieved the petitioner preferred an appeal to the Government under section 7(3) of the Act which was allowed and the case was remanded to the Director of Land Requisition, Acquisition and Reforms, Assam, Guwahati who was asked to act as Collector in the case. Two points raised before the Director were relating to exclusion of (1) requisitioned area from the total holding of the tea garden; and (2) exemption of lands covered by forests. The Director disallowed these exclusions. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner has approached this Court under Art. 226 of the Constitution.

(2.) Shri Sarma appearing for the State has raised an objection to the approach to this Court by the petitioner without exhausting the alternative remedy provided by the Act. In this connection he has referred to Than Singh Vs. Superintendent of Taxes, AIR 1964 SC 1419 where it was stated that ordinarily a High Court should not entertain a petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution where the petitioner has an alternative remedy which is equally efficacious. It would be apposite to point out in this connection that by the time the impugned order was passed on 13.8.76, the provision of appeal to the Government had been done away with, and instead a revisional power had been conferred on the State Government by section 7(6) of the Act which could be exercised by the Government on its own motion. Shri Bhattacharjee has, therefore, referred to Collector of Customs Vs. A.S. Bava, AIR 1968 SC 13 wherein it was held that existence of remedy by way of revision did not bar approach to the High Court under Art. 226 of the Constitution. This being the position, we do not think if there is any bar in the way of the petitioner to get its case examined by us on merit.

(3.) To do so we should first note the relevant provisions the Act which would help us to appreciate the submissions advance by Shri Bhattacharjee. The Act which is a piece of important land reform measure imposed, when it was first enacted, a ceiling of 150 bighas of land which could be held by a family. This ceiling has gradually been reduced to 50 bighas. The expression "land as it stood at the relevant time has been defined in section 3(f) of the Act to mean-