LexCOLLECTOR OF KAMRUP AND OTHERS versus KAMAKHYA RAM BAROOAH AND OTHERS
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B c D 'E F G H COLLECTOR OF KAMRUP AND OTHERS v. KAMAKHY A RAM BAROOAH AND OTHERS September 11, 1964 (P. B. GAJENDRAGADKAR, C.J. AND J. C. SHAH J.) 265 As.rant Land (Requisition and Acquisition) Act (Assani 25 of 19-1-8) ss. 3, 4 and II-Scope of. Under r. 75-A of the Defence of India Rules, 1939, the respon<lenls' land and building thereon were requisitioned. While that requisition order was subsisting, an order for acquisition of the land and building was pas.seJ under s. 4 of the Assam Land (Requisition and Acquisition) Act (Assam 25 of 1948). Realising later that the power under s. 4 could be exercised only when there was a requisition order under s. 3, the defect was sought to be rectified by passing an order of requisition to take effect from a date anterior to the order of acquisition. The respondents applied fcir a refer- ence under s. 8 of the Act and, the Subordinate Judge to whom the refer- ence was made and the High Court on appeal held the acquisition invalid. In appeal to the Supreme Court, it was contended that notwithstanding the illegality the order of acquisition was saved by s. 11 of the Act, as an order made in exercise of power conferred by or under the Act. HELD : The power which was exercisable under s. 4 being expressly a power to acquire land which was under requisition under s. 3 and there being no effective order of requisition under that section the acquisition was not made in exercise of the power conferred by or under the Act. Section 11 was not therefore a bar to the maintainab.ility of the objection raised as to the validity of the acquisition. [267H; 268A]. CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeals Nos. 412- 414 of 1962. Appeals from the judgment dated ~e?ruary 10, 1958 of the Assam High Court in Appeals from Ongmal Decrees Nos. I 0 to 21 of 1953. Naunit Lal, for appellants Nos. I and 2 (in all the appeals). B. Sen and B.R.G.K. Achar, for appellant No. 3 (in all the appeals). Beharul Islam and R. Gopalakrishnan, for the respondents ( in all the appeals) . The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Shah J. These three appeals raise a common question as to the validity of certain acquisition proceedings commenced by the Collector of Kamrup, State of Assam, under s. 4 of the Assam Land (Requisition and Acquisition) Act, 1948. We may in dealing with these appeals set out the facts. whic!1 give rise to appeal No. 412 of 1962. The respondents m. this apPeal are owners of a plot of land at Bharalumukh, Gauhatt, on 266 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [ 1965] l S.C.R. which stands a residential building. In exercise of the powers A conferred by rule 75-A of the Defence of India Rule.~. 1939, the Government of India in 1943, requisitioned the land and the building for the use of the defence forces. Since the date of the requisition the land and the building continued in possession of the Government of India. The Collector of Kamrup passed an order on February 9, 1949 for acquisition of the land and build- ing purporting to e~ercise powers under s. 4 of the Assam (Requi- sition and Acquisition) Act, 1948. At this time the requisition order made by the Government of India was subsisting. There- after by order dated August 4, 1949 the Collector requisitioned B I he land in exercise of the power conferred by s. 3 of the Assam Act 1948, and ordered that the requisition do take effect from C Fehruary 7, 1949. The Collector assessed compensation payable tn the respondents under s. 7 of the Act. The respondents applied for a reference to the Civil Court under s. 8 of the Act arid simul- 1::.neously challenged the authority of the Collector to acquire the land in the manner he had done. The Subordinate Judge, Gau- hati to whom the reference was made, held that there was no valid acquisition of the land and the building of the respondents. He, however, assessed compensation which would be payable to the respondents if the acquisition wa~ valid. In appeal to the High Court of Assam, the order passed by the Subordinate Judge, hold- D ing that the acquisition was invalid was confinned. The Sta~ of E Assam has filed this appeal with certificate granted by the High Court. Acquisition of the land and building belonging to the respon- dent~ was not made under the Land Acquisition Act I of 1894, but under the provisions of the Assam Land (Requisition and F Acquisition) Act, 1948. The Act was enacted. as the preamble states. f
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.