LexPARESH CHANDRA CHATTERJEE versus THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANOTHER
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
,
JM1
Aug111t 9.
88
SUPREID~ COCRT REPORTS
PARESH CHANDRA CHATTER,JEE
i;.
THE STATE OF ASSAM A!\D ANOTHER
(P. B. GAJENDRAGADKAR, K. SnrnA RAo,
M. HID.A.YATULLAH, J. C. SH.I.IT and
RAOHt;BAR DAYAJ, JJ.)
Requ18iti011 of Land-T,a Estate land requi1tilioned-State
Legis/ation-COf!Stitutionality of-If makea proi·ision.. for payment
of compensation-·A . .,ani Land (Requisition and Acquisition) Ad,
1948 (Assam 25 of 1948) 88. 3,6,7,8-Tea Act, 1.963(2V of 1953)
""i 2,10,15-Con..titutimi of India, Art.,, SJ (2), 372, Sch. V 11,
List I, Entry 52-l.and Acquisitit.n Act, 1894 (I of 1894),
... 23, 24, 25.
Certain lands out of the petiuoncr's tea cstalc Y•cre rcqui-
sitioneo by the State under the A"am Land (Requisition and
Acquisition) Act, 1948.
The petiiiooer cl:allengcd the consti-
tutionality of the Act on the grounds that it was uUra rirea the
State l.egi,lature in so far as it provided for the requisition an<l
acquisition of tea estates as tea industry ,,.as a n1atter for
exclmive legislation
by
Parliament and that it offended
Art.31(2) of the Constitutic.n as it neither pro,·idcd for payment
of compensation for property requisitioned nor specified the
principles and the manner in ,.,.hich con1pcnsatiun \\·ac; to he
detrrmined.
/{e!d, that the Act \\'as
not ultra 1:ire.s
tlic Assan1
Legislature and \\'as valid. l"he Act
\~;as valid when it '\'a5
made in 1948 and, '"·ould by reason of .:\1 L
3 72 of the
Constitution, continue in force after the com1nenc:c1ncn t of the
Constitution until alu:red, repealed or an1endc<l by a cvmpetent
legislature. 'fhe :\ct in essence provided nn ly for requ isitio11
or acqui~ition of lands in the public interest; it l:a<l nothing to
do with the tea industry.
Thr Tea Act, l!l53, made by
Parlian1cnt, \Vhich \\·as 1nainly concerned \\·itli the ctevclopmcnt
of the tea industry and had nnthing to do "·ith the requisition
and acquisition of laud. did not in any \\·ay alter, repeal or
amend the 1\ssan1 :\ct.
F111 ther, the Assan1 :\ct <lid not offend
.:\rt.
31 (2) of the Constitution.
·r1ierc ,,·ere provisiuns in thr.
Act for the payment of agreed con1pc11:sation and in case of
dh~agreernent for a refrrl".nCl' ro the cour1, in \\hich reference the
provisions of
the
Land .\cquisitiou
1\ct1 18941
\vould
niutatis111ufandi.Y apply. 'l'huugl1 the l..and ,\cquisith)n .\ct, 1894,
<lid nut provide for rcquisi1ion of land its provisions relating to
payment of compensation for acquisition of land could be
applied to requisition of land after due alterations.
..
,
-
•
,
3 s.c.:R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
89
ORIGINAL JurusDICTION : Petitions Nos. 236 and
237 of 1960. Petitions Under Art. 32 of the Consti-
tution of India for enforcement of fundamental
rights.
K. B. Bagchi and R. C. Dutta, for petitioner.
A. V. Viswanatha Sastri and Naunit Lal, for
respondents.
1961. August 9. The Judgment of the Court
was deliverd by
SUBBA RAo, J.-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 !tores are under
tea cultivation and the rest, according to the
Petitioner, is utilised for the purpose of tert 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 fellow and unutilised. On December 4-, 1959,
the Deputy Commissioner of Cachar at Silchar,
respondent No. 2 issued a notification requisition-
ing an area of 183 bighas of land of the said Tea
Estates, 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 Consti-
tution praying for the issue of writs of mandamus
directing the respondents to forbear from giving
effect to the said orders.
Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner
raised before us two contentions, namely, (i) tea
industry is a matter for exclusive legislation by the
Parliament under Entry 52, List I of t11e Seventh
Schedule to the Constitution, and therefore, the
Ass'lm Land (Requisition and Acquisition) Act
of 1948,
(hereinafter called the Act),
in so
1961
Paresk Chandra
Chatterjee
v.
11he State of Assam
Subba Rao J,
••
IHI
Port•h Chandra
CM.tttrjn Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.