WP(C) 2793/2010 BEFORE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. R.S. GARG THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B.D. AGARWAL Judgement and Order (ORAL) (R.S. Garg, C.J.) Heard learned counsel for the parties. In accordance with the d irection issued by the learned Single Judge on 18-05-2010, the matter has been p laced before us. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that Annexure-III order dated 03-05-2010 under which certain land is proposed to be requisitioned under the provisions of Assam Land (Requisition and Acquisition) Act, 1964 (in short, the 1964 Act ) is under challenge. It is firstly submitted that somewhe re in the year 1996 the parcels of the land in dispute, which are proposed to be requisitioned, were allotted to the landless persons so that they could build t heir houses on the land. It is submitted that if the land was allotted for such a particular purpose, then for establishment of a fish market or a vegetable ma rket on the aforesaid land, the petitioners could not be evicted. It is also con tended that establishment of a fish market or a vegetable market would not come within the purview of Section 3(1) of 1964 Act and, therefore, the Government wo uld not be entitled to issue such a notification. It was also submitted that as on today potential value of the land is on the higher side but the Deputy Commi ssioner is providing Rs.1,37,000/- (Rupees One Lacs Thirty Seven Thousand) per K atha, which would be too low, therefore, the order dated 03-05-2010 is bad. 3. The learned counsel for the State, on the other hand, submitted that a fair reading of Section 3, Section 6, Section 11 and Section 12 would mak e it clear that the Government is entitled to requisition the land, even for a t emporary purpose, and in case, the Government is of the opinion that such land i s required to be acquired for a permanent purpose, then appropriate steps can be taken by the Government. It is also contended that the price fixed by the Depu ty Commissioner would not be final because the land owners would be entitled to lodge their claims before the appropriate forum and in case their claims are rej ected then at their request, a reference can be made to the Court under Section 12 of the 1964 Act. 4. During the course of the argument, we enquired from the learned counsel for the petitioners that whether on the allotted parcels of the land, an y construction of any house or residential unit has been raised or not in reply it was submitted that no construction has been raised on the said parcel of land . 5. In so far as the mercy question raised by the learned counsel fo r the petitioners that each of the petitioners would be ousted from the land whe re they are proposing to build their dream homes is concerned, we are not impres sed by the said argument because if in the last 14 years they have not raised an y construction then allotment of the land for house construction has lost its im portance because for the entire period the land is lying fallow and no construct ion has been raised over it. 6. In so far as the question relating to fixing of the price at Rs. 1,37,000/- per Katha is concerned, the said argument in our opinion, does not ha ve any persuasive value because any person, who is aggrieved by the compensation proposed can always come before the authority under Section 11(1) after the lan d is acquired under Section 6 and lodge his claim. In such an eventuality the a uthority would be obliged to fix just and reasonable compensation in accordance with law. If the party is still dissatisfied by the compensation so fixed, it c an make an application to the concerned Collector, who shall make a reference to the competent Court under Section 12 of the Act. 7. Section 3 of 1964 Act provides as under:- 3. Power to requisition. - (1) If in the opinion of the State Government or any person authorised in this behalf by the State Government it is so to do, for ma intaining supplies and services essential to the life of the community or for pr oviding proper facilities for accommodation, transport, communication, irrigatio n, flood control and anti-erosion measures including embankment and drainage or for providing land individually or in groups to landless, flood affected or disp laced persons, or to a society registered under Assam Co-operative Societies Act , 1949 (Assam Act I of 1950), or a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 (Act I of 1956), formed for benefit and rehabilitation of landless, flood affected or displaced persons [or to provide land for the purpose of constructio n of border fencing and allied works, including border roads and check posts con nected therewith, along Bangladesh Border] the State Government or the person so authorized, as the case may, may by order in writing, requisition any land and may make such further order as appear to it or to him to be necessary or expedie nt in connection with the requisitioning. (2) An order under sub-section (1) shall be served in the prescribed manner on t he owner of the land and where the order relates to land in occupation of a tena nt, also on such tenant. (3) Where the order for requisition is made by any authority other than the Stat e Government, any person interested in the land, within 30 days from the date of service of order, may appeal to the State Government and the decisions of the G overnment in such appeal shall be final. 8. The Government would always be entitled to form its opinion and come to the conclusion that it had become necessary so to do for maintaining sup plies and services essential to the life or the community or for providing prope r facilities. It can not be disputed that supplies of the vegetables and food a rticles would come within the definition of supply and for maintaining such supp lies and services essential to the life of the community if the Government is pr oposing to requisition particular parcels of land either for establishing a mark et or for regulating the activities, then it cannot be said that the action on t he part of the Government is of violative of Section 3 of 1964 Act of Assam. 9. It was contended that Section 3 is a temporary measure but from the order dated 03-05-2010, it would appear that the Government is proposing to establish a permanent market and, therefore, in the circumstances the requisitio n proceedings are bad. 10. In our opinion, Section 3 would provide a foundation to the Gove rnment for temporarily requisitioning the property and if the Government has alr eady decided to use and occupy the land permanently then expression of the indic ation and intension in the order issued under Section 3 would not be violative o f any of the rights of the petitioners. Section 6 is virtually dependent upon S ection 3. It is not like Section 4 and Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, w hich provides for a notification under Section 4 and thereafter, a declaration u nder Section 6 of the Act. In the present case, if the Government thought that before permanent acquisition under Section 6, the land is required to be requisi tioned under Section 3 of 1964 Act then no wrong in the intention of the Governm ent can be found. In so far as the purpose for which requisition is proposed, w e are fortified in our view by judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in t he matter of Nadir Shah & Ors. -Vs- State of Assam & Anr. (1960 Assam 18). The said judgment provides as under:- It is urged that the land has not been requisitioned for the opening of a marke t by the State Government, but by the Municipal Board, which is not a public pur pose, as contemplated under Sec. 3 of Act 25 of 1948. It is also urged that the land was not suitable for opening a market, and that the opening of a market ca nnot be said to be ’for maintaining supplies and services essential to the life of the community.’ The purpose of requisition, according to the petitioner No.1 , does not come within the ambit of any of the purposes enumerated in Sec. 3(1) of the Assam Land (Requisition and Acquisition) Act. We have considered this arg ument with care and, in our opinion, it cannot be said that the opening of a mar ket is not for maintaining supplies and services essential to the life of the co mmunity. 11. If such is the understanding of law for long many years then we do not think that we are required to unsettle the settled law. 12. After considering the arguments raised by the learned counsel fo r the petitioners, we do not think fit to interfere in the present petition. It deserves to and is accordingly dismissed. Interim order, if any, stands vacate d. 13. This judgment and order shall also dispose of WP(C) No.2670 of 2 010 and WP(C) No.2794 of 2010.