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

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

                            SEPTEMBER 3, 1996
                                                                                    B
             [K. RAMASWAMY AND PAI.ZAN UDDIN, JJ.)

       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
    498                   SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996) SUPP. 5 S.C.R.

A          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
B   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?

          The reference Court raised issued No. 3 in that behalf and con-
    sidered the question elaborately. It held thus :


F            "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
G            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
H            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 times are embodies in the Assam
          Land Revenue Manual and those rules from a part of this book.
          Under these circumstances, I am convinced that the acquired lands
          are grants for special cultivation.

         From the evidence placed above, I am not in a position to accept
                                                                                   B
         the contention of the claimant that there were thatch, shed tress
         and seedlings etc. when the lands were requisitioned. From the
         evidence it is also found that even seedlings were sometime raised
         on the slope of the tilla by the garden labourers on payment of
         rent to the garden. So this cannot be construed as that lands were        c
         utilised by the garden for the purpose for which those were given.
         The claimant has failed to show with any documentary evidence
         that paddy and thatch were raised in some portion of the acquired
         lands before the lands were requisitioned. On the other hand, the
         objector's witnesses, some of whom are official witnesses, said that      D
         at the time of requisition the lands were lying patty. I, therefore,
         find no substance in the argument that the lands were not fallow,
         uncultivated or not utilised at the time when these were requisi-
         tioned."

        After elaborate consideration, it was held that the land was fallow        E
. uncultivated and not unutilised at the time when the property was requisi-
  tioned. The Division Bench of the High Court again elaborately considered
  the nature of the grant, nature of the acquisition and the nature of the
  factual possession of the land as on the date of the requisition and it relied
  upon another Division Bench judgment of that Court in First Appeal Nos.          F
  67- 68/69 decided on February 23, 1982 and concluded thus :

         "The expression in the ease of land with respect to which any
         settlement has been made for special cultivation or which is in-
         cluded in any grant, if such land is lying fallow or uncultivated or
         is not utilised for the purpose for which the grant or settlement G
         was made or for the purposes unidentical thereto", has to be given
         coherent and pragatic interpretation, the words 'fallow' or
         'cultivated' also being understood in the context of the concept of
         special cultivation for which the grant was meant. 'Fallow' accord-
         ing to the Webster's New Twentieth Century Dictionary, means H
    500                   SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996} SUPP. 5 S.C.R.

A           and that has laid a year or more untilled or unseeded to kill weeds,
            make the soil reacher etc. land which has been ploughed or tilling
            of and without sowing it for a season. It means left cultivated or
            planted. According to the same Dictionary, utilisation means utilis-
            ing or being utilised. To utilise is to profitable account or use, to
            make useful, as to utilise natural resources. Thus, all the three
B           expressions, namely, fallow, uncultivated and not utilised have to
            be understood in the context of special cultivation for which the
            grant was made, Cultivation of the land for a purpose foreign to
            special cultivation or utilisation of the land for a purpose different
            from that which the grant was made, would be as much cultivation
c           or unutilisation."

             Applying the above principle we do not find any infirmity in the
             findings of the Reference Court that the land involved in this case
             was covered by Section 7(1A) of the Act and it would not fall
             under Section 7(1) of the Act. In this views of the matter the sale
0
             deeds and the J amabandi classification which does not indicate the
             use of the land become irrelevant. Besides, the Jamabandi is dated
             the 5th November, 1959 while the land become irrelevant. Besides,
             the Jamabandi is dated the 5th November, 1959 while the land was
             requisitioned in 1954 and subsequently acquired in 1959 by
E            notification dated 13.2.1959."

        The said ratio was applied to the facts in this case and it was held
  that since the lands were fallow uncultivated lands they got attracted and
  accordingly it was held that Section 7(1A) was inapplicable. Though Shri
F Choudhary sought to impress upon us that the land is fallow and, therefore,
  the land falls within Section 7(1A), that would be see:t under the recital
  and the grant that would establish that the lands were assigned by a grant
  for special cultivation. Under the Assam Act of 1964, with a view to remove
  the ambiguity as to the "special cultivation" under sub-section (2) of Section
  11, the expression has been defined to mean cultivation which involves,
G either owing to the nature of the crop or owing to the process of cultivation,
  a much larger expenditure of capital per acre than is incurred by most of
  the cultivators in the State and includes cultivation of tea. It would be seen
  that the special cultivation was meant to includes cultivation involving
  higher capital outlay per acre than the expenditure incurred for cultivation
H by the cultivators in the State and also a cultivation of the tea which against
         BENOY MAZUMDAR v. SR. COLLECTOR OF CACHAR                    501

the special cultivation involves higher investment of higher capital outlay. A
In view of the concurrent findings recorded by the reference Court as well
as the High Court that the land remained as fallow, uncultivated or barren .
land, necessarily the conclusion would be that the grant contained that the
land was meant for special cultivation. Consequently, Section 7(1) has no
application to the determination of the compensation as per the prevailing
                                                                             B
market value as on the date of the acquisition under the Act. We do not
find that the Act is arbitrary. The Full Bench of five Judges in the above
judgment, per majority, has elaborately gone into the question and con-
cluded that Section 7(1A) is not arbitrary. The reason appears to be that
the land having been assigned by the Government, when it is needed for a
public purpose, what the assignee would get in return is the land revenue; C
after use and enjoyment thereof, he would be compensated with the
payment of the land revenue envisaged under.Section 7(1A) of the Act. It
is settled law by catena of judgments of this Court including one by the
Constitution Bench that the prescription of the principle for determination
of the compensation is not violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. Even D
in Bhim Singhji v. Union of India, the Constitution Bench of this Court has
held that the payment of compensation for the surplus vacant land acquired
under the Ceiling Act under Section 6(ii) in the sum of Rs. 2,00,000 was
not illusory. Considered from this perspective, we hold that the determina-
tion of the compensation under Section 7(1A) is not violative of Article 14
of the Constitution. The majority of the'' Full Bench of the five Judges of E
the Assam High Court has rightly concluded the issue. Accordingly, we
hold that there is no illegallality in the impugned judgment. Moreover,
when the High Court has consistently interpreted a local law in a particular
way, this Court would be. slow to disturb their interpretation unless com-
pelling circumstances so warrant. The High Court has not applied wrong p
principle of law in determining the compensation warranting interference.

     The appeal is accordingly dismissed but, in the circumstances,
without costs.

G.N.                                                   Appeal dismissed.    G