Case: Paresh Chandra Chatterjee Vs. State of Assam &amp; Another

is not justiciable. The question is whether the Act satisfies the said conditions. The relevant provisions of the Act dealing with compensation in the case of requisition of land are as under.Section. 6 (1) Where any land requisitioned under S. 3 is not acquired and is to be released from requisition it will revert to the owner and the Collector will deliver the possession of the land to such owner or interested person who was recognised under S. 7(3).Section 7. (3) Where any land is requisitioned under S. 3, there shall be paid to every person interested such compensation as may be agreed upon in writing between such person and the Collector, in respect of :-(a) the requisition of such land; and(b) any damage done during the period of requisition to such land other than what may have been sustained by natural causes.Section. 8, (1) The Collector shall in every case-.......... ........ ........ ............(b) where there is any disagreement with regard to the compensation payable under sub-sec. (3) of S. 7 between the Collector and the person to whom possession of any land is delivered under S. 6, refer the matter to the decision of the Court.(2) The provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, shall mutatis mutandis apply in respect of any reference made to the Court under sub-sec. (i).These provisions provide for the payment of agreed compensation, and, in the case of disagreement between the Collector and the person to whom possession of any land is delivered under S: 6, for a reference to the Court. In respect of any such reference to the Court, the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, shall mutatis mutandis apply. The argument is that in the matter of requisition, the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, does not prescribe and principles for awarding compensation and therefore, in respect of requisition, either sub-sec. (2) of S. 8 is not applicable or becomes otiose, with the result that the Act does not lay down any principles on which and manner in which the compensation is to be determined. This argument ignores the expression "mutatis mutandis" in sub-s. (2) of S. 8. The said expression means "with due alteration of details". The Land Acquisition Act applies only to acquisition of land as distinguished from requisition of land, Acquisition deprives the owner permanently of his land; and requisition deprives him only of his right to present possession. When the necessity for which the land was requisitioned ceased, it may be made to revert to him. Sub-section (2) of S. 8 of the Act makes the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, with due alterations of details or appropriate changes, apply in respect of any reference made to the Court. Part III of the Land Acquisition Act provides for a reference to the Court and the procedure thereof. With appropriate modifications the provisions of that Chapter apply to a reference in respect of compensation for requisition. Sections 23, 24 and 25 lay down the principles for ascertaining the amount of compensation payable to a person whose land has been acquired. We do not see any difficulty in applying those principles for paying compensation in the matter of requisition of land. While in the case of land acquired, the market value of the land is ascertained, in the case of requisition of land, the compensation to the owner for depriving him of his possession for a stated period will be ascertained. It may be that appropriate changes in the phraseology used in the said provisions may have to be made to apply the principles underlying those provisions. To illustrate: S. 23 of the Land Acquisition Act says :(1) In determining the amount of compensation to be awarded for land acquired under this Act, the Court shall take into consideration-first the market value of the land at the date of the publication of the notification under S. 4, sub-sec. (1);secondly, the damage sustained by the person interested, by reason of the taking of any standing crops or trees which may be on the land at the time of the collectors taking possession thereof;thirdly, the damage if any, sustained by the person interested, at the time of the Collectors taking possession of the land, by reason of severing such land from his other land;fourthly, the damage if any sustained by the person interested, at the time of the Collectors taking possession of the land, by reason of the acquisition injuriously affecting his other property, movable or immovable, in any other manner, or his earnings;fifthly, if, in consequence of the acquisition of the land by the Collector, the person interested is compelled to change his residence or place of business, the reasonable expenses if any incidental to such change andsixthly, the damage if any bona fide resulting from diminution of the profits of the land between the time of the publication of the declaration under S. 6 and the time of the Collectors taking possession of the land2. In addition to the market value of the land as above provided, the Court shall in every case award a sum of fifteen per centum on such market value, in consideration of the compulsory nature of the acquisition. "If instead of the word "acquisition" the word "requisition" is read, and instead of the words "the market value of the land" the words "the market value of the interest in the land" of which the owner has been deprived are read, the two sub-sections of the section can, without any difficulty, be applied to the determination of compensation for requisition of a land. So too, the other sections can be applied. If the argument of learned counsel for the petitioner be accepted, we would be attributing to the Legislature an incongruity namely, that while it provides principles of compensation in the matter of acquisition, it omits to do so in the matter of requisition, though in both the cases a reference to the Court is provided. For the aforesaid reasons, we reject this contention.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 0

Explanation:
0[ds]The Act in essence provides only for requisition or acquisition of lands in public interest. It has nothing to do with tea industry, and as for that matter anyTea Act, therefore, not only does not expressly prohibit the acquisition of any land, but also in express terms provides for the replacement, of the area acquired by other land for the purpose of tea plantation. Though the Tea Act does not in term visualize the contingency of requisition as distinguished from acquisition, we cannot come to a different conclusion in respect of it, for the word "acquisition" must have been used in a comprehensive sense so as to include requisition also. That apart, the provisions of the Act do not expressly or by necessary implication prohibit requisition of a land used directly or incidentally for the purpose of plantation of tea. The rules made under the Act only provide for the control of tea industry and they have no bearing on the question of requisition or acquisition of land. A comparative study of both the Acts makes it clear that the two Acts deal with different matters and were passed for different purposes. The Tea Act in no sense of the term can be described as one altering, repealing or amending the Act passed by the Assam Legislature. This contention is, therefore,instead of the word "acquisition" the word "requisition" is read, and instead of the words "the market value of the land" the words "the market value of the interest in the land" of which the owner has been deprived are read, the two sub-sections of the section can, without any difficulty, be applied to the determination of compensation for requisition of a land. So too, the other sections can be applied. If the argument of learned counsel for the petitioner be accepted, we would be attributing to the Legislature an incongruity namely, that while it provides principles of compensation in the matter of acquisition, it omits to do so in the matter of requisition, though in both the cases a reference to the Court is provided. For the aforesaid reasons, we reject thisargument ignores the expression "mutatis mutandis" in sub-s. (2) of S. 8. The said expression means "with due alteration of details". The Land Acquisition Act applies only to acquisition of land as distinguished from requisition of land, Acquisition deprives the owner permanently of his land; and requisition deprives him only of his right to present possession. When the necessity for which the land was requisitioned ceased, it may be made to revert to him. Sub-section (2) of S. 8 of the Act makes the provisions ofthe Land Acquisition Act, 1894, with due alterations of details or appropriate changes, apply in respect of any reference made to the Court. Part III of the Land Acquisition Act provides for a reference to the Court and the procedure thereof. With appropriate modifications the provisions of that Chapter apply to a reference in respect of compensation for requisition. Sections 23, 24 and 25 lay down the principles for ascertaining the amount of compensation payable to a person whose land has been acquired. We do not see any difficulty in applying those principles for paying compensation in the matter of requisition of land. While in the case of land acquired, the market value of the land is ascertained, in the case of requisition of land, the compensation to the owner for depriving him of his possession for a stated period will be ascertained. It may be that appropriate changes in the phraseology used in the said provisions may have to be made to apply the principles underlying those provisions.