LexNUMALIGARH REFINERY LTD. versus GREEN VIEW TEA & INDUSTRIES AND ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
- I 4 NUMALIGARH REFINERY LTD. A v. GREEN VIEW TEA & INDUSTRIES AND ANR. MARCH 15, 2007 [B.P. SINGH AND TARUN CHATTERJEE, JJ.] B Land Acquisition Act, 1894. Sections 4, 6 and 18-Acquisition of tea gardens-Government offering compensation @ Rs. 55,0001- per bigha-Offer of government rejected and C government forced to initiate proceedings for acquisition under the Act- Compensation @ Rs. 7,0001- per bigha awarded by Collector-Amout of compensation challenged as being grossly inasequate-District Judge enhancing compensation to Rs. 22,0001- per bigha-High Court fixing compensation@ Rs. 10,8761- per bigha-Government offering compensation D for similar class of lands in other districts @Rs. 60,0001- per bigha-Award in respect of similar class of lands acquired in another district made @ Rs. 55,0001- per bigha-Highest sale deed for similar class of lands in another district @ Rs. 50,0001- per bigha produced-Compensation claimed at Rs. 55, 0001- per bigha for land acquired-Held, value of tea class lands did not vary much on account of their location in different districts-Jn the facts, E compensation enhanced to Rs. 35,0001- per bigha-Compensation worked out @ Rs. 35,0001- per bigha fair and adequate as appellant also entitled to statutory benefits like solatium and interest thereon. Notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was issued for acquisition of 681 bighas of land with tea bushes of the appellant F for the benefit of the respondent in the District of Golaghat. The Collector awarded compensation for lands @ Rs. 7,000/- per bigha and for tea bushes @ Rs. 15 per tea bush. Appellant sought referece under Section 18 of the Act and District Judge awarded compensation @ Rs. 22,000/- per bigha for the lands and @ Rs. 75/- each for tea bush. Appellant, G respondent and Collector all filed appeals in the High Court against the award of the District Judge. High Court dismissed the appeal preferred by the appellant while allowing the appeals preferred by the respondent and the Collector and restored the award of the Collector granting 1143 H 1144 SUPREME COURT REPORTS 12007) 3 S.C.R. A compensation @ Rs. 7000/- per bigha and Rs. 15/- per tea bush. Appellant filed review application against dismissal of its appeal. High Court partly allowed review application and increased the compensation awarded for the lands from Rs. 7000/- per bigha to Rs. 10,876/- per bigha and awarded compensation of Rs. 75/- for each tea bush. Aggrieved by the order of the B High Court in review, both the appellant and respondent have appealed to this Court. Appellant contended that compensation awarded by the High Court os wholy unjustified and grossly inadequate as the State having itself granted compensation @ Rs. 55,000/- per bigha, which was also at one C stage offered to the appellant, and in the light of several awards made and setimataes prepared by the Department of the State Government, there was no justification for granting to the appellant compensation for the lands at a rate less than Rs. 55,000/- per bigha; that High Court ought to have relied on the approval of rates@ Rs. 60,000/- per bigha for tea lands in the districts of Tinsukia and Dibrugarh and also on two awards made D in respect of tes lands in the district of Sibasagar fixing rate at Rs. 55,000/ - per bigha ; that of the three sale deeds produced before the Courts the highest rate should have been accepted which was Rs. 50,000/- per bigha; and that High Court had fixed rate of Rs. 75/- per tea bush on the basis of an award which was approved by Division Bench of the High Court. E Respondent contended that earlier offer made by the State Government for the. lands in question @ Rs. 55,000/- per bigha was cancelled since the appellant did not accept the same and it became neccessary to resort l:o the process of acquisition under the Act; that the three sale deeds on which the appellant relied related to small plots by F the side of the road which were not comparable with the lands subject r matter of the acquisition; that Dibrugarh and Tinsukia were more ·i developed than the district of Golaghat; that awards relied upon by the appellant related to the district of Sibasagar and not the district of Golaghat; and that compensation for tea bushes @ Rs. 75/- each is excessive and even if the formula adopted by the Arbitrator is accepted, G the compensation will not be Rs. 75/- per tea bush bu
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.