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

1. The petitioner owns a tea estate called the Urrunabund Tea Estate in village Udarbund in the District of Cachar in the State of Assam. The extent of the Tea Estate is about 2682 acres. Out of the said area 553.73 acres are under tea cultivation and the rest, according to the petitioner, is utilised for the purpose of tea industry and for purposes connected with the said industry. The respondents do not admit this fact and state in the counter-affidavit that the remaining area is lying fallow and unutilised. On December 4, 1959, the Deputy Commissioner of Cachar at Silchar, respondent No. 2, issued a notification requisitioning all area of183 bighas of land of the said Tea Estate, and by another notification dated December 5, 1959, he requisitioned another extent of 149 bighas 19 cottahs and 11 chattacks of land of the said Tea Estate. The petitioner filed two petitions in this Court under Art. 32 of the Constitution praying for the issue of writs of mandamus directing the respondents to forbear from giving effect to the said orders.

Court's reasoning:
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.