Case: Assam Railways and Trading Company Limited Vs. Collector of Lakhimpur and Another

This appeal by certificate granted by the High Court of Assam and Nagaland arises out of a preceding under the Land Acquisition Act for the acquisition of an area of land belonging to the appellant company (hereinafter referred to as the company) measuring 61 bighas 1 katha and 7 lechas in village Khalihamari, Mouza Dibrugarh, in District Lakhimpur. Before the acquisition proceedings started, the Assam Railway had been negotiating with the company for purchase of the land, and it appears from the correspondence on record that the Railway was prepared to pay Rs.2500/per bigha for the land. However, the transaction was not completed as the Executive Engineer, Assam Railway, at Dibrugarh pointed out that under the State Railway Rules land from private parties could be acquired only by acquisition proceedings. Proceedings for acquisition of the land started on October 17, 1951 when the notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act was published. In the meantime, theCollector, Dibrugarh, who was deputed to find out the market value of the land, assessed the value at Rupees 1000/per bigha. After the Railway authorities came to know of this estimate the Chief Administrative Officer of the Railway wrote to the General Manager of the Company on October 27, 1951 saying that although before the acquisition proceedings started the Railway had agreed to pay Rs.2500/per bigha, in view of the estimate submitted by theCollector, the Railway was not agreeable to pay such a high price. This letter was followed by another written on January 7, 1952, in which the Chief Administrative Officer referred to the "gentlemans agreement" about the price, adding that "as a Government concern", they had to "observe certain rules" and that it was "quite impossible" in the circumstances to agree to the price of Rs.2500/per bigha. On September 7, 1955 the Collector made his award allowing compensation at the rate of Rs.1000/per bigha plus 15 per cent of the amount as additional compensation under S. 23(2). The company being dissatisfied with the award applied for a reference under Section 18 of the Act. The Additional District Judge, Dibrugarh, who heard the reference rejected the same and affirmed the Collectors award. The company preferred an appeal to the High Court from the decision of the Additional District Judge. The High Court dismissed the appeal by its judgment dated March 13, 1964, but granted a certificate under Article 133 (1)(a) of the Constitution.Mr. Sanghi for the respondents took a preliminary objection that the certificate granted by the High Court ought to be cancelled as it did not disclose any reason. Undoubtedly the certificate suffers from this infrimmity, but, having regard to the questions involved in the case which Mr. S. T. Desai for the appellant indicated to us, we thought that the case required consideration and heard the appeal treating it as one by special leave.

Court's reasoning:
We have already referred to the wide disparity in price of the different plots of land mentioned inn Exhibit C; if the High Court was not prepared to rely on the side deeds produced by the company, we do not see how it was possible to depend on the transaction noted in Exhibit C. It is not that on the evidence we are taking a different view from the High Court; all we wish to point out is that the High Court treated Exhibit C as conclusive without noticing its infirmities and without considering whether it was adequate to provide a basis for ascertaining the value of the land. The High Court also failed to advert to several relevant and important aspects of the evidence on record which we have discussed above.6. It is difficult for us to say that the High Court should have determined the market value on the basis of any particular piece of evidence adduced in the case. This is a very old matter, and a remand to the court of the District Judge for reconsideration of the case on new and additional material means prolonging its life by several more years. From the judgment of the High Court it appears that the High Court found no. objection to the method of capitalizing the rental value of the land for twenty years to determine its market value. In fact the High Court found that "the Railway took the land on lease at Rs.105/per bigha per annum" but, as the other terms of the lease were not known, the High Court did not find it possible to hold that the aforesaid sum represented "the actual rental value of the land". It is also not known whether the lease spoken of was a written lease.It is difficult for us to say that the High Court should have determined the market value on the basis of any particular piece of evidence adduced in the case. This is a very old matter, and a remand to the court of the District Judge for reconsideration of the case on new and additional material means prolonging its life by several more years. From the judgment of the High Court it appears that the High Court found no. objection to the method of capitalizing the rental value of the land for twenty years to determine its market value. In fact the High Court found that "the Railway took the land on lease at Rs.105/per bigha per annum" but, as the other terms of the lease were not known, the High Court did not find it possible to hold that the aforesaid sum represented "the actual rental value of the land". It is also not known whether the lease spoken of was a written lease.In these circumstances, we think that the best course would be to send the case back to the High Court for determination of the market value of the land on the aforesaid method upon affidavits. The High Court will come to its own conclusion as to the market value on a consideration of the mateials disclosed in these affidavits. As the case is an old one, we expect that the High Court will try to dispose of the matter expeditiously, if possible within a period of four months from the date the record of the case is received back in that court.