1992 (1) TMI 340 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the expression 'annual land revenue' in Section 12 of the Assam Fixation of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1956 includes 'surcharge' payable under the Assam Land Revenue and Land (Surcharge) Act, 1970 and the 'local rate' payable under the Assam Local Rates Regulation, 1979.
2. Preliminary objection regarding the limitation period for filing an appeal against the assessment of compensation u/s. 12 of the Ceiling Act.

Summary:

Preliminary Objection:
The respondents raised a preliminary objection regarding the limitation period for filing an appeal against the assessment of compensation u/s. 12 of the Ceiling Act. The District Judge had condoned the delay in filing the appeal, considering the principles of natural justice and fair play. The Supreme Court upheld this decision, stating that the provisions of the Limitation Act, 1963, apply to proceedings under the Ceiling Act, and the District Judge was competent to condone the delay. Therefore, the preliminary objection was rejected.

Main Issue: Assessment of Compensation u/s. 12 of the Ceiling Act:

Surcharge:
The main question was whether the surcharge levied under the Surcharge Act can be considered as land revenue for the purpose of assessing compensation u/s. 12 of the Ceiling Act. The Supreme Court referred to various precedents and concluded that the surcharge on land revenue is an enhancement of the land revenue and should be treated as part of the land revenue. The Court disagreed with the High Court's view that surcharge is distinct from land revenue. The Supreme Court held that surcharge payable under the Surcharge Act constitutes land revenue and must be included in the assessment of compensation.

Local Rate:
Regarding the local rate payable under the Local Rates Regulation, the Supreme Court agreed with the High Court's view that the local rate is distinct from land revenue. The local rate is a levy for specific purposes such as famine relief and local purposes, and it does not form part of the general revenue of the State. Therefore, the local rate cannot be considered as land revenue for the purpose of assessing compensation u/s. 12 of the Ceiling Act.

Conclusion:
The appeal was partly allowed. The judgment of the High Court was set aside to the extent it held that the surcharge is distinct from land revenue. It was held that the surcharge constitutes land revenue and must be included in the assessment of compensation. The High Court's view that the local rate is distinct from land revenue and should be excluded from the assessment was upheld. The matter was remanded to the District Judge, Dibrugarh, for re-determination of the compensation payable to the appellant in accordance with the law. The parties were left to bear their own costs.