SH BENOY MAZUMDAR (DEAD) BY LRS. versus THE COLLECTOR OF CACHAR

Citation: [1996] SUPP. 5 S.C.R. 497 · Decided: 03-09-1996 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. RAMASWAMY, FAIZAN UDDIN · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

SH BENOY MAZUMDAR (DEAD) BY LRS. 
A 
v. 
THE COLLECTOR OF CACHAR 
SEPTEMBER 3, 1996 
[K. RAMASWAMY AND PAI.ZAN UDDIN, JJ.) 
B 
Assam La11d (Requisition a11d Acquisition) Act, 1948-Sections 7( JA), 
8( JA)--Compe11satio11 for land acquired-Nature of la11d being fallow, u11cul-
tivated or barre11 S.7( 1) has 110 application-The Act is also 11ot ar-
bitr01y---Co11stitutio11 of India, A1t, 14--Land Acquisition Act, 1894--S.23( 1). 
C 
H.P. Bamah v. 77ze Collector of Sibsagar, Assam, AIR (1976) SC 68, 
referred to. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 1843 of D 
1994. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 26.2.82 of the Assam High 
Court in F.A. No 29 of 1965. 
N.R. Choudhary and Som Nath Mukherjee for the Appellant. 
E 
S.N. Choudhary and S.A. Syed for the Respondent. 
The following Order of the Court was delivered : 
This appeal by special leave arises from a very elaborate and well 
F 
considered judgment of the Division Bench of the Assam High Court made 
on February 26, 1982 in First Appeal No. 29/65. The admitted position is 
that on February 13, 1959, 60 bighas of land was requisitioned under the 
Assam Land (Requisition and Acquisition) Act, 1948. Ultimately, by pub-
lication of the notification under Section 8(1A) of the Act the land was G 
acquired for the public purpose for settlement of the refugees from 
Bangladesh. The Land Acquisition Officer applying the provisions of Sec-
tion 7(1A) of the Act determined the compensation @ Rs. 297.69 rounded 
off to Rs. 300 per bigha. On appeal, the Division Bench has confirmed the 
same but awarded interest at 6% from the date of taking possession till 
date of payment. Thus, this appeal by special leave. 
H 
497 
A 
B 
498 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996) SUPP. 5 S.C.R. 
Shri Choudhary, learned counsel for the appellant, contended that 
the land was taken on grant from the Government on August 8, 1872 for 
special cultivation. Therefore, the compensation was required to be deter-
mined under Section 23(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (1 of 1894) 
(for short, the "Act") as envisaged under Section 7(1) of the Act. As 
specified in sub-section (1) of Section 7 of the Act, his contention focuses 
mainly on the question whether the land is lying fallow or is for special 
cultivation. The learned counsel contends that the courts below have not 
properly understood the contents of the documents and interpreted the law 
in that perspective and, therefore, this Court is required to go into that 
question. He further contended that though Section 7(1A) of the Act which 
C has been specifically incorporated in the Assam Land (Requisition and 
Acquisition) Act, 1964 reiterates what is stated in Section 11 thereof, it is 
violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. In support thereof, he places 
strong reliance on a dissenting judgment dated September 28, 1981 of one 
of the Judges of a Full Bench of five Judges in C.R. No. 28/67 and batch. 
D Shri Choudhary, learned senior counsel appearing for the State, placing 
reliance on the Judgment of this Court in H.P. Bantah v. The Collector of 
Sibsagar, Assam, AIR (1976) SC 68, contended that the controversy has 
been concluded by the said judgment in which it was held that for uncul-
tivated or fallow land and that Section 7(1) stands applicable. In view of 
the respective contentions, the question that arises for consideration is : 
E what is the nature of the land acquired? 
F 
G 
H 
The reference Court raised issued No. 3 in that behalf and con-
sidered the question elaborately. It held thus : 
"From the perusal of Ext. 12 I find that there are certain limitation 
even though the lands are redeemed grants. I do not find anything 
in support of the claimant at pages XXV and XXVI of introduction 
of Assam Land Revenue Manual, Vol. I, that th..., lands acquired 
were not grains but fee simple estate pure and simple. It is an 
undisputed fact that the acquired lands were assessed with revenue 
by Assam Act No. XXIV of 1948 which Act was passed before the 
passing of the Assam Land (Requisition and Acquisition) Act, 
1948. It may be true that the words "special cultivation" might not 
appear in the rules passed before 1876 but that does not go to 
show that the acquired lands were sold to the company as fee 
simple Estate, pure and simple and by virtue of that the company 
I 
BENOY MAZUMDAR v. SR. COLLECI'OR OF CACHAR 
499 
became the proprietor of land as like that of a fee simple estate. A 
These rules passed in different ti

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.