Case: Hemendra Prasad Baruah Vs. The Collector Of Sibsagar, Assam

KRISHNA IYER, J.1. The concurrent conclusions of fact 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 Courts reasoning, we are persuaded to affirm the finding.2. 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 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.

Decision:
0[ds]The simple statutory test that settles the issue is to find out whetherthe land acquired is Lying fallow oruncultivated. 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 ten garden, the quantum is as under s. 23 ofthe 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.