The court emphasized the importance of consistent and concurrent findings in upholding the jurisdictional dispute over the disputed land.

This appeal arises out of judgment and order dated 6.7.94 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court in Civil Rule No.348 of 1989.

2. The appellant is a public limited company, incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956. The company is engaged in the business of cultivation, manufacture and sale of tea. The company has two tea estates, namely, Bongapani Tea Estate an Namdang Tea Estate. Bongapani Tea Estate is amitted to be situated within the State of Assam. Namdang Tea Estate has two divisions, namely, (1) Namdang Division and (2) Namtok Division. The; entire Namdang Division is situated in the State of Assam. But it is alleged that so far as the Namtok Division is concerned, only an area of 738B 3K 1L is situated within the territory of the State of Assam and the remaining area of 2404 bighas of that Division formed part of the erstwhile North Eastern Frontier Agency, NEFA, now Arunachal Pradesh. The appellant company used to pay the land revenue to the Government of Assam in respect of land measuring 738 bighas 3 kathas and 1 lecha of land of Namtok Division situated within the State of Assam and also Agriculaural Income Tax on agricultural income derived from cultivation of tea growth on the said land. By virtue of North Eastern Areas (Reorganisation) Act, 1971, the area comprised in NEFA became the Union Territory of Arunachal Pradesh and thereafter by the State of Arunachal Act, 1986, the State of Arunachal Pradesh was established. That from 1979, the Deputy Commissioner, Dibrugarh started to sent demand notices, demanding payment of land revenue for 1011 bighas 3 kathas 18 lechas of land of Namtok Division situated in Assam claiming arrears from 1st April, 1977. Thus, there was an additional area of 273 bighas of land at Namtok Division claiming that this area was within the State of Assam on the basis of resettlement and survey made. The petitioner company paid land revenue in respect of the said additional land of 273 bighas under protest.

3. The basic facts are that the appellant filed petitions for quashing the impugned assessment order dated 24.11.82 (Annexure 3) as passed by the Agricultural Income Tax Officer levying income tax on the income derived from 273 bighas of land situated in Arunachal Pradesh and the subsequent orders dated 29.8.94 and 24.5.88 as passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Taxes (Appeals) and Commissioner of Taxes, Assam respectively, filed as Annexure IV and V to the petition and further praying for a direction to the respondents to refrain from levying and collecting Agricultural Income Tax on income derived from tea grown of the aforesaid 273 bighas of land, which according to the appellant was situated in Arunachal Pradesh.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant repeated the same contentions as were advanced before the authorities and the learned Single Judge. A positive finding of fact has been recorded by the assessing authority to the effect that the land in question is within the State of Assam and not in Arunachal Pradesh, as contended by the writ petitioner-appellant. Now this finding of fact is sought to be challenged in this writ appeal.

5. Mr. NN Saikia, learned Advocate General appearing for the State of Arunachal Pradesh submitted that how the respondent State has filed an affidavit. Going through the impugned judgment, the then Advocate General, Mr. AM Mazumar, appearing for the State of Arunachal Pradesh, as noted by the learned Single Judge in the judgment in para 7, has made a frank statement that the area in question was included in the State of Assam. This statement is binding on the State, who cannot be allowed to take a different inconsistent stand at the appellate stage. Thus, the sole ground on which the assessment order was challenged being based on question of fact, whether the land in question comprised in the State of Assam or Arunachal Pradesh ? and there being consistent and concurrent finding throughout, it is not open to this Cour