JUDGMENT

CHANDRACHUD, CJI.:— Civil Appeals Nos. 81 & 82 of 1972 : An agricultural land measuring 3,095 bighas approximately, was requisitioned by the Sub-divisional Officer, Mangaldai on various dates in April 1950. On Feb. 21, 1958 the Collector gave back symbolic possession of an area admeasuring 2,740 bighas approximate to the appellant after derequisitioning it.

2. The appellant thereafter filed a claim petition under S. 7 (3) (b) of the Assam Land (Requisition and Acquisition) Act, 1948, claiming compensation under various heads, out of which claim in respect of two items has been pressed on behalf of the appellant in these appeals. The first claim was in the sum of Rs. 1,80,000/- for the damage caused to a portion admeasuring 90 bighas and the second claim was in respect of an area admeasuring 44 bighas, 3 canals and 14 laches, which, according to the appellant lost to him since that portion was covered by roads and canals. The petitions were dismissed by the Collector, but the High Court directed him to refer the matter to the District Court for its adjudication.

3. The learned District Judge awarded a sum of Rs. seven thousand odd as compensation for the land which was under roads and canals. In an appeal filed by the appellant in the High Court two main contentions were raised. The first was that the appellant ought to have been awarded compensation for the erosion of a portion of the land and the second was that the lands which were covered by roads and canals were a total loss to the appellant since it was impossible to reconvert them to their original use. The High Court rejected the contention of the appellant in respect of the alleged erosion of the land but remanded the matter to the District Judge on the question of compensation in respect of the land covered by roads and canals. The High Court took the view that the appellant would be entitled to receive, by way of compensation, a sum which he would be required to expend for putting the land covered by roads and canals in the same condition in which it was at the time when it was requisitioned by the Collector. The High Court has granted to the appellant a certificate to appeal to this Court under Art. 133 (1) (a) of the Constitution.

4. Mr. Nandy who appears on behalf of the appellant argues in the first instance that the High Court was in error in coming to the conclusion that the erosion of a large portion of the land could be attributed to natural causes and was not due to any act or default on the part of the Government. The learned advocate has taken us through the entire evidence on this question but we see no reason for taking a view contrary to the one taken by the High Court and the District Court. The evidence discloses that after the land was requisitioned, the P.W.D. had constructed a bridge over a portion of the river near the land. There is no evidence to show that the erosion of the land was caused in my manner an account of the construction of that bridge as was alleged by the appellant. In view of the fact that the District Court and the High Court have recorded a concurrent finding of fact on this question we are unable to entertain Mr. Nandys submission.

5. In regard to the contention that the land covered by roads and canals cannot possibly be put back to its original use, Mr. Nandy has to face a similar difficulty. The High Court has scrutinised the entire evidence on this question with care and has come to the conclusion, in our opinion rightly, that the claim made by the appellant must be restricted to the amount which it would be necessary for him to spend for the purpose of putting the land covered by roads and canals In the same condition in which it was at the time when the land was requisitioned. The learned District Judge was apparently in error in awarding compensation for the land covered by roads and canals as if that particular portion of the land was acquired by the Government. The appeals must therefore fail and are accordingly