This appeal under section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 has been preferred controverting the judgment and award dated 1.10.86 passed by the Assistant District Judge No.2 at Guwahati in Misc (Ref) Case Nos 43,44,45,46 and 47 of 1983 arising out of the award given by the Collector in Land Acquisition Case No.20 of 1980.

2. A plot of land measuring 40 bighas of Village Dwarandha in Beltola Mouza was acquired by the State Govt vide notification No.RLA3/80/7 dated 9.9.80 and declaration No.RLA 3/80/11 dated 24.10.81. The possession of the land was taken over by the Collector on 8.12.1981.

3. Respondent No. 1 Kuladhar Kumar, since deceased and now represented by his legal heirs, laid his claim for apportionments of compensation amount as tenant in respect of 1 bigha 4 kathas and 11 lechas out of Dag No.534 of Kheraj Periodic Patta No. 177. The Collector made an apportionment of a sum of Rs. 14,826.37 in favour of respondent No. 1.

4. Another plot 1 bigha 3 katha 6 lechas of Nisfikheraj Patta No.2 in the same village was taken on lease by the appellants from Basistha Devalaya authorities and thereafter they purchased the occupancy right from the respondent No.l and revenue records were corrected accordingly showing the appellants as occupancy tenants. This plot of land was also acquired by the Govt. under the Assam Acquisition of Land belonging to Religious and Charitable Institutions of Public Nature Act, 1959 and this plot of land was erroneously shown under Dag No.210 of Annual Patta Land No.43 without knowledge of the appellants and in violation of the provisions of sections 15 and 16 of the said Act. The Collector, while passing the Award ordered deduction of Rs.3,361,50 from each of the appellants as premium for conversion of this land to periodic patta without hearing the appellants.

5. The Collector on being moved by the appellants referred the matter to the Court under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1994. Misc (Ref) Case Nos 43,44,45,46 and 47 of 1983 were registered. The learned Assistant District Judge vide judgment and award dated 1.10.86 enhanced the compensation amount but upheld the aforesaid two orders relating to apportionment and deduction of premium. Aggrieved thereby, the appellants have preferred this appeal.

6. Heard Mr. KR Pathak, learned counsel for the appellants and Mr. P Khataniar, learned counsel for the respondents.

7. First let us deal with the validity and propriety of the order relating to apportionment. The claims of Kuladdhar Kumar, since deceased, is based on tenancy over 1 bigha 4 katha 11 lechas of land acquired under Land Acquisition Act, 1894. Section 11 (1) of the Act of 1894 provides for apportionment by the Collector. As the Award of apportionment was disputed, it was referred to the Court of LA Judge under section 30 of the said Act for a decision. The learned LA Judge dealt with this question in paras 10, 11 and 12 of his judgment. The learned Court below relying on the Chitha (Ext A), Khatian (Ext B), the order of the Assistant Settlement Officer (Ext C) and the oral statement of Kuladhar Kumar came to the conclusion that late Kuladhar Kumar was a tenant in respect of 1 bigha 4 katha 11 lechas of land appertaining to Dag No.534. On this finding, the learned LA Judge confirmed the order of the Collector for apportionment of the compensation amount.

8. It would appear that Exts B and C which were relied upon by the learned Land Acquisition Judge were prepared after the notification of acquisition of land issued on 9.9.80. But Ext A (Chitha) nowhere shows Kuladhar Kumar as tenant. The last endorsement in the remarks column is dated 28.3.78. This negates the claim of possession as tenant since twenty years back, tentatively corresponding to 1975, as claimed by him in his deposition recorded on 18.12.75. Exts B and C, read together, suggest that his name found berth in the Khatian / corrected as per order dated 27.1.81 passed by the Assistant Settlement Officer. The said order dated 27

Click Here to Read the rest of this document