JUDGMENT

KRISHNA IYER, J.—The concurrent 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.

2. 100 bighas 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 lying unused. Later, the State proceeded to acquire the land under Section 7 (1A) 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 Sec. 7 (1A) or the larger one stipulated under Section 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 Section 7 (1A) of the Act. On the ot