Dismissed¶54

Collector of Kamrup and Others v. Kamakhya Ram Barooah and Others

Supreme Court11 Sept 19641964 INSC 187 · [1965] 1 S.C.R. 2651964 INSC 187

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Collector of Kamrup and others v. Kamakhya Ram Barooah and others; Civil Appeals Nos. 412-414 of 1962; Supreme Court of India; decided September 11, 1964. Key terms: Assam Land (Requisition and Acquisition) Act, 1948 - ss. 3, 4, 7, 8, 11; Defence of India Rules, 1939 - rule 75-A; acquisition under s. 4 permissible only of land already requisitioned under s. 3; requisition under Defence of India Rules confers no power to acquire under the Assam Act; retrospective/backdated requisition order cannot cure an invalid acquisition; s. 11 protection clause inapplicable where order not made under the Act; appeals dismissed with costs.

What did the court decide?

None to the appellants; the three appeals were dismissed with costs. ¶54

Collector of Kamrup and Others versus Kamakhya Ram… — Land Acquisition | Supreme Court (1965)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

None to the appellants; the three appeals were dismissed with costs.

¶54

Issue for consideration

Validity of the acquisition proceedings commenced under s. 4 of the Assam Land (Requisition and Acquisition) Act, 1948, although at the date of the acquisition order the land stood requisitioned under rule 75-A of the Defence of India Rules, 1939 and not under s. 3 of the Assam Act. +1 more

¶20

Court's answer

The power to acquire land under s. 4 of the Assam Act may be exercised only where the land has been requisitioned under s. 3, and not otherwise.

¶44

Ratio / Principle

The previous requisition of the land under the Defence of India Rules, outstanding at the date of the order of acquisition, could not confer any authority upon the Provincial Government of Assam to acquire the land belonging to the respondents under s. 4 of the Act.

¶45

Key takeaways

Passing the requisition order of August 4, 1949 with retrospective effect from February 7, 1949 was merely an expedient and could not validate the earlier illegal order of acquisition.ratio¶44
The order passed under s. 4 acquiring the respondents' land cannot be said to have been made in exercise of the power conferred by or under the Act.ratio¶48
Since there was no effective order of requisition under s. 3, s. 11 of the Assam Act was no bar to the maintainability of the objection raised to the validity of the acquisition.ratio

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Held (Shah J., for the Court sitting with Gajendragadkar C.J., September 11, 1964): Land and a building requisitioned in 1943 under rule 75-A of the Defence of India Rules, 1939 were acquired on February 9, 1949 under s. 4 of the Assam Land (Requisition and Acquisition) Act, 1948, although the power under s. 4 may be exercised only where the land has been requisitioned under s. 3 of that Act and not otherwise. The subsequent requisition order of August 4, 1949 under s. 3, backdated to February 7, 1949, was a mere expedient and could not validate the earlier illegal order of acquisition. As the acquisition was therefore not made in exercise of a power conferred by or under the Act, s. 11 (which bars calling such orders in question in any Court) did not protect it, and the objection to its validity was sustainable. Affirming the High Court of Assam, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeals with costs.

¶1

265

¶2

¶3

COLLECTOR OF KAMRUP AND OTHERS

¶4

¶5

KAMAKHY A RAM BAROOAH AND OTHERS

¶6

September 11, 1964

¶7

¶8

(P. B. GAJENDRAGADKAR, C.J. AND J. C. SHAH J.)

¶9

As.rant Land (Requisition and Acquisition) Act (Assani 25 of 19-1-8) ss. 3, 4 and II-Scope of.

¶10

Under r. 75-A of the Defence of India Rules, 1939, the respon<lenls' land and building thereon were requisitioned. While that requisition order was subsisting, an order for acquisition of the land and building was pas.seJ under s. 4 of the Assam Land (Requisition and Acquisition) Act (Assam c 25 of 1948). Realising later that the power under s. 4 could be exercised only when there was a requisition order under s. 3, the defect was sought to be rectified by passing an order of requisition to take effect from a date anterior to the order of acquisition. The respondents applied fcir a reference under s. 8 of the Act and, the Subordinate Judge to whom the reference was made and the High Court on appeal held the acquisition invalid. In appeal to the Supreme Court, it was contended that notwithstanding the illegality the order of acquisition was saved by s. 11 of the Act, as an D order made in exercise of power conferred by or under the Act.

¶11

HELD : The power which was exercisable under s. 4 being expressly a power to acquire land which was under requisition under s. 3 and there being no effective order of requisition under that section the acquisition was not made in exercise of the power conferred by or under the Act. Section 11 was not therefore a bar to the maintainab.ility of the objection raised as to the validity of the acquisition. [267H; 268A].

¶12

¶13

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeals Nos. 412414 of 1962.

¶14

Appeals from the judgment dated ~e?ruary 10, 1958 of the Assam High Court in Appeals from Ongmal Decrees Nos. I 0 to 21 of 1953.

¶15

¶16

Naunit Lal, for appellants Nos. I and 2 (in all the appeals). B. Sen and B.R.G.K. Achar, for appellant No. 3 (in all the appeals).

¶17

Beharul Islam and R. Gopalakrishnan, for the respondents ( in all the appeals) .

¶18

¶19

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

¶20

Shah J. These three appeals raise a common question as to the validity of certain acquisition proceedings commenced by the Collector of Kamrup, State of Assam, under s. 4 of the Assam Land (Requisition and Acquisition) Act, 1948.

¶21

H We may in dealing with these appeals set out the facts. whic!1 give rise to appeal No. 412 of 1962. The respondents m. this apPeal are owners of a plot of land at Bharalumukh, Gauhatt, on

¶22

[ 1965] l S.C.R.

¶23

266

¶24

SUPREME COURT REPORTS

¶25

which stands a residential building. In exercise of the powers conferred by rule 75-A of the Defence of India Rule.. 1939, the Government of India in 1943, requisitioned the land and the building for the use of the defence forces. Since the date of the requisition the land and the building continued in possession of the Government of India. The Collector of Kamrup passed an order on February 9, 1949 for acquisition of the land and building purporting to eercise powers under s. 4 of the Assam (Requisition and Acquisition) Act, 1948. At this time the requisition order made by the Government of India was subsisting. Thereafter by order dated August 4, 1949 the Collector requisitioned I he land in exercise of the power conferred by s. 3 of the Assam Act 1948, and ordered that the requisition do take effect from Fehruary 7, 1949. The Collector assessed compensation payable tn the respondents under s. 7 of the Act. The respondents applied for a reference to the Civil Court under s. 8 of the Act arid simul1::.neously challenged the authority of the Collector to acquire the land in the manner he had done. The Subordinate Judge, Gauhati to whom the reference was made, held that there was no valid acquisition of the land and the building of the respondents. He, however, assessed compensation which would be payable to the respondents if the acquisition wa~ valid. In appeal to the High Court of Assam, the order passed by the Subordinate Judge, holding that the acquisition was invalid was confinned. The Sta~ of Assam has filed this appeal with certificate granted by the High Court.

¶26

Acquisition of the land and building belonging to the respondent~ was not made under the Land Acquisition Act I of 1894, but under the provisions of the Assam Land (Requisition and Acquisition) Act, 1948. The Act was enacted. as the preamble states. for the requisition and speedy acquisition of premises and land for certain purposes. By s. 3 if in the opinion of the Provincial Government or any person authorised in that behalf by the Provincial Government, it is necessary so to do, for maintaining supplies and services, essential to the life of the eornnmnity or for providing proper facilities for accommodation, transport, communication, irrigation or drainage, to requisition land, the Provincial Government or the person authorised may by order in writing, do so and make such further orders as appear to it or to him to be necessary or expedient in connection with the requisition. Section 4 by sub-s. ( 1) provides :

"Where any land has been requisitioned under section 3, the Provincial Government may use or deal with

¶36

COLLECTOR V. BAROOAH (Sha/J J.)

¶37

267

¶38

¶39

it in such manner as may appear to it to be expedient and may acquire such land by publishing ii:t the Official Gazette, a notice to the effect that the Provincial Government has decided to acquire such land in pursuance of this section."

¶40

¶41

¶42

Sub-section ( 2) provides :

¶43

"Where a notice as aforesaid is published in the Official Gazette, the requisitioned land and premises shall, on and from the beginning of the day on which the notice is so published, vest absolutely in the Provincial Government free from all incumbrances and the period of requisition of such land shall end."

¶44

The power to acquire land under s. 4 may, it ·is plain from a bare perusal of sub-s. ( 1), be exercised where the land hos been requisitioned under s. 3 and not otherwise. In the present case, an order for acquisition of the land was made in the first D instance and presumably because it was realized that the order was defective and irregular, it was sought to be rectified by passing an order on August 4, 1949, requisitioning the land with effect from February 7, 1949. By this expedient, an illegal order of acquisition could not be validated.

¶45

E It is true that at the date when the order of acquisition was passed under s. 4, the land was under requisition for use of the defence forces. That order of requisition was passed not under s. 3 of the Assam Act, but under Rule .7 5-A of the· Defence of India Rules, 1939. The previous requisition under the Defence of India Rules which was at the date of the order of acquisition F outstanding could not confer any authority upon the Provincial Government of Assam to acquire the land belonging to the respondents under s. 4 of the Act.

¶46

It was urged that notwithstanding the illegality in the acquisition, the oraer of acquisition was saved by s. 11 of the As!am G Act, which provides :

¶47

"Save as otherwise expressly provided in this Act, no decision or order made in exercise of any power conferred by or under this Act shall be called in question in any Court."

¶48

It cannot, however, be said that the order passed under s. 4 H acquiring the Jarid of the respondents was made in exercise of the power conferred by or under the Act. The power which was exercisable under s. 4 being expressly a power to acquire land.

¶49

[1965] I S.C.R.

¶50

268

¶51

S\JPRP.ME COURT REPORTS

¶52

¶53

which is under requisition under s. 3, and there being no effective A order of requisition under that section, s. 11 is no bar to the maintainability of the objection raised to the validity of the acquisition. The High Court was, therefore, in our judgment right in holding that the acquisition was illegal.

¶54

The appeals fail and are dismissed with costs.

¶55

Appeals dismi.u~d.

Collector of Kamrup and Others v. Kamakhya Ram Barooah and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Collector of Kamrup and Others v. Kamakhya Ram Barooah and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Daya Ram and Others versus Shyam Sundari

Deputy Custodian, Evacuee Property, New Delhi and Others versus Official Receiver of the Estate of Daulat Ram Surana, Delhi

State of Bombay (Maharashtra) versus Shivbalak Gourishanker Dube & Others

Official Receiver, Kanpur and Another versus Abdul Shakur and Others

B. Basavalingappa versus D. Munichinnappa

Subhas Chandra and Others versus Municipal Corporation of Delhi and Another