1994 Supreme(SC) 316

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
K. Ramaswamy and N. Venkatachala, JJ.
Civil Appeal No. 3671 of 1984
Decided On: 03.03.1994
Sonapur Tea Company Private Limited and Anr. Appellants
Vs.
State of Assam and Anr. Respondent
Counsel for the Parties
For Appellant/Petitioner/Plaintiff: J.P. Bhattacharjee, Senior Adv., N.R. Choudhury, Som Nath Mukherjee and Ranjana Ghosal, Advs.
For Respondents/Defendant: S.K. Nandy, Adv.

Headnote:

Defence of India Act, 1962 - Requisitioning and Acquisition of Immovable Property Act, 1952 - Section 8(2),8(2)(2A) and (2B), 25 - appointment as Arbitrator – Claim of Compensation - Feeling that said award of Arbitrator was excessive Defence Department of Union through Deputy Commissioner Kamrup filed an appeal against it in Gauhati High Court - That appeal was partly allowed by High Court in that it set aside award of Arbitrator except with regard to compensation fixed under item in award and remitted case for being decided afresh by Arbitrator by following guidelines given in its judgment - But appellants who felt that guidelines of High Court given in its judgment and required to be followed by Arbitrator in determining compensation payable for requisitioned property - Tea estate were not inconsonance with principles specified in provisions of Act have presented this appeal by special leave It was submitted by counsel for appellants that judgment under appeal although is a remand order and directs Arbitrator to make a fresh determination of compensation for first appellants requisitioned tea estate guidelines contained therein for determination of compensation - That in computing recurring compensation payable for tea estate income from tea bushes fruit bearing plants or trees or even building in such estate which existed at time of requisition shall not be taken into account if they were destroyed after requisitioning that in computing recurring compensation payable for tea estate use to which land of estate is put by occupant could alone be taken into consideration that compensation payable for tea bushes fruit bearing plants and trees growth building etc - In tea estate which were likely to be destroyed shall be their one-time lump sum value not being in consonance with relevant principles specified in Act were unsustainable - It was also submitted by counsel for appellants and rightly that appellants will have no objection for setting aside that portion of judgment of High Court by which a lump sum compensation awarded by Arbitrator for fruit bearing plants trees and other wild growth in tea estate was affirmed if such award of separate compensation for plants and trees and other wild growth in a tea estate separately is found by us to be unwarranted by provisions of Act - Held, Recurring payment envisaged under Clause of Sub-section (2) of Section 8 as could be seen therefrom is a sum equal to the rent which would have been payable for use and occupation of requisitioned property if it had been taken on lease during that period - Recurring payment to be made for requisitioned property under Clause therefore must be a sum which is equal rent that might be fetched by requisitioned property if it had been leased for period during which it was under requisition - Although rent payable for a property taken on lease for a period could generally be on yearly or monthly basis according to nature of property during period of subsistence of such lease a recurring payment of compensation envisaged in Clause to be made for requisitioned property has to be fixed on yearly basis if it is agricultural land or on quarterly basis if it is any other type of property as is indicated in Rule 9(2) of Rules made under Act - Court allow this appeal set aside award of Arbitrator and judgment of High Court and remit case to Government of Assam requiring it to appoint an Arbitrator and place case before him for determining afresh amount of compensation payable for requisitioned tea estate after affording parties opportunity to make claims or file objections afresh if they so desire and to adduce evidence including that of experts if any therefore afresh and order payment of compensation less the amount of compensation if any, already paid, in accordance with law and in consonance with guidelines laid down in this judgment - Arbitrator to be appointed shall dispose of case with utmost expedition and at any rate within a period of four months from date of his appointment as Arbitrator - However in circumstances of this appeal there will be no order as to costs –Appeal Allowed