http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2  

PETITIONER: HEMENDRA PRASAD BARUAH

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: THE COLLECTOR OF SIBSAGAR, ASSAM

DATE OF JUDGMENT22/07/1975

BENCH: KRISHNAIYER, V.R. BENCH: KRISHNAIYER, V.R. RAY, A.N. (CJ) MATHEW, KUTTYIL KURIEN FAZALALI, SYED MURTAZA

CITATION:  1976 AIR  908            1976 SCR  (1)  68  1975 SCC  (2) 322

ACT:      Assam Land  (Requisition  and  Acquisition)  Act,  1948 (Assam Act  XXV o;  1948) Section  7(1A)-Acquisition of land lying unused-Appellant,  if  entitled  to  larger  scale  of compensation.

HEADNOTE:      100 bights  of land  lying unused were requisitioned by Government to  settle landless  people. The appellant, a tea planter, willingly surrendered the same. But, when the State proceeded to  acquire the  land under s. 7(1A) of’ the Assam Land (Requisition and Acquisition) Act, 1948 he disputed the payment of  lesser scale of compensation prescribed under s. 7(1A) of  the  Act.  ’The  Courts  below  concurrently  held against him.      Dismissing the appeal, ^      HELD: The  simple statutory test that settles the issue is lo  find out whether the land acquired is Lying fallow or uncultivated. If  it  is,  a  small  compensation  alone  is awardable, as laid down in s. 7(1A) of the Act. On the other hand, if  it is tea garden, the quantum is as under s. 23 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. Plethora of evidence adduced in this  case clearly proceeds on the basis that the land in question is  fallow. The  High Court has, therefore, rightly held that s. 7(1A) appropriately applied to this case. [68H- 69B]

JUDGMENT:      CIVIL APPELLATE  JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1264 of 1969.      Appeal by certificate from the judgment and order dated the 12th  Feb., 1968 of the High Court of Assam and Nagaland at Gauhati in First Appeal No. 21 of 1963.      D. Mookherjee and S. K. Nandy, for the appellant.      M. H. Chowdhury and S. N. Chowdhury, for the respondent      The Judgment of the Court was delivered by      KRISHNA IYER,  J.-The concurrent  conclusions  of  fact

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2  

reached by  both the  courts below  regarding the quantum of compensation payable  to the appellant on the acquisition of his land  for a  public purpose by the State are assailed by Shri D. Mukherjee before us on the ground that the amount is grossly inadequate.  Having heard  him in  the light  of the High Court’s  reasoning, we  are  persuaded  to  affirm  the finding.      100 bighas  of land  belonging to  the appellant (a Tea Planter) were  first requisitioned  by Government  to settle landless people  and the  owner ’gladly’ agreed to surrender the area which, on his own showing, was lying unused. Later, the State  proceeded to  acquire the  land under s.7 (1A) of the Assam  Land  (Requisition  and  Acquisition)  Act,  1948 (Assam Act  XXV of  1948). The sole dispute turns on whether the lesser  scale of compensation proceeded under s.7(1A) or the larger  one stipulated  under s.7(1) is attracted to the situation. The  simple statutory test that settles the issue is to  find out whether the land acquired is Lying fallow or uncultivated. If  it  is,  a  small  compensation  alone  is awardable, as laid down in s.7(1A) of the Act. On the other 69 hand. if  it is ten garden, the quantum is as under s. 23 of the Land  Acquisition Act,  1894. This decisive factor lends itself to  easy decision, because a plethora of evidence, to most of  which the  appellant is  a party,  proceeds on  the basis that  the land  in question  is fallow. The High Court has collected  and considered the prior statements and other materials leading  to the  reasonable holding  that  s.7(1A) appropriately applied  to this  case. It  follows  that  the appeal has no merit and deserves to be dismissed.      We order  both parties  to bear their respective costs. Subject to this direction, the appeal is dismissed. V. M. K.                                   Appeal dismissed. 70