Supreme Court of India
HEMENDRA PRASAD BARUAH versus THE COLLECTOR OF SIBSAGAR, ASSAM
- Decided
- 22 July 1975
- Judges listed
- A.N. RAY
- Disposal
- Dismissed
Citations
- Official
- [1976] 1 S.C.R. 68 · 1975 INSC 135
- Not shown
- 1 other citation string that other judgments attach to this one, on evidence too thin or too divided to publish.
Cited by
Cited in 1 other Supreme Court judgment we hold.
Counted only in the Supreme Court judgments we hold whose text we could read, not in High Court judgments. We match each citation to a judgment automatically, so a citation we cannot match is not counted. "Cited" says only that a judgment refers to this one, not whether it followed, distinguished or overruled it.
The Court's text
Paragraphs from our copy of the Supreme Court Reports print, with the Court's own paragraph numbers, the printed page and, where printed, the margin letter. The Court did not number this judgment's paragraphs, so they are listed by page. Link to paragraph N with #para-N.
KRISHNA IYER, J .-The concnrrent conclusions of fact reached by both the courts below regarding the quantum of compensation payable to the appellant on the acquisition of his land for •a public purpose by the State are assailed by Shri D. Mukherjee before us on the ground that the amount is grossly inadequate. Having heard him in the light of the High Court's reasonings, we are persuaded to affirm the finding.
p. 68, margin F
100 bii;!ras of land belonging to the appellant (a Tea Planter) were first requisitioned by Government to settle landless people and the owner 'gladly' agreed to surrender the area which, on his own showing, was lymg unused. Later, the State proceeded to acquire the land under s.7 (lA) of the Assam Land (Requisition and Acquisition) Act, 1948 (Assam Act XXV of 1948) . The sole dispute turns on whether the lesser scale of compensation prescribed under s.7(1A) or the larger one stipu1'ated under s.7(1) is attracted to the situation. The simple statutory test that settles the issue is to find out whether the land acquired is lying fallow or uncultivated. If it is. a small compensation alone is awardable, as laid down in s.7(1A) of the Act. On the other hand. if it is ten garlien, the quantum is as under s. 23 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. This decisive factor lends itself to easy decision, because a plethora of evidence, to most of which the appellant is a party, proceeds on the basis that the land in question is fallow. The High Court has collected and considered the prior sllltements and other materials leading to the reasonable holding that s.7(1A) appropriately applied to this case. It follows that the appeal has no merit and deserves to be dismissed.
pp. 68–69, margin F
We order both parties to bear their respective costs. Subject to this direction, the -appeal is dismissed. V.M.K. Appeal dismissed.
p. 69, margin B