Shri Benoy Mazumdar (Dead) By Lrs Vs. The Collector Of Cachar
lands were requisitioned. On the other hand, the objectors witnesses, some of whom are official witnesses, said that at the time of requisition the lands were lying patty. I, therefore, find no substance in the argument that the lands were not fallow, uncultivated or not utilised at the time when these were requisitioned." * 4. After elaborate consideration, it was held that the land was fallow, uncultivated and not unutilised at the time when the property was requisitioned. The Division Bench of the High Court again elaborately considered the nature of the grant, nature of the acquisition and the nature of the factual possession of the land as on the date of the requisition and it relied upon another Division Bench judgment of that Court in First Appeals Nos. 67-68 of 1969 decided on 23-2-1982 and concluded thus. "The expression in the case of land with respect to which any settlement has been made for special cultivation or which is included in any grant, if such land is lying fallow or uncultivated or is not utilised for the purpose for which the grant or settlement was made or for the purposes unidentical thereto, has to be given coherent and pragmatic interpretation, the words fallow or cultivated also being understood in the context of the concept of special cultivation for which the grant was meant. Fallow according to the Websters New Twentieth Century Dictionary, means land that has been lying a year or more untilled or unseeded to kill weeds, make the soil richer etc., land which has been ploughed or tilled without sowing it for a season. It means left uncultivated or unplanted. According to the same dictionary, utilisation means utilising or being utilised. To utilise is to profitably account or use, to make useful, as to utilise natural resources. Thus, all the three expressions, namely, fallow, uncultivated and not utilised have to be understood in the context of special cultivation for which the grant was made. Cultivation of the land for a purpose foreign to special cultivation or utilisation of the land for a purpose different from that which the grant was made, would be as much cultivation or unutilisationApplying the above principle we do not find any infirmity in the findings of the Reference Court that the land involved in this case was covered by Section 7(1-A) of the Act and it would not fall under Section 7(1) of the Act. In this view of the matter the sale deeds and the Jamabandi classification which does not indicate the use of the land become irrelevant. Besides, the Jamabandi is dated 5-11-1959 while the land was requisitioned in 1954 and subsequently acquired in 1959 by notification dated 13-2-1959." 5. The said ratio was applied to the facts in this case and it was held that since the lands were fallow uncultivated lands they got attracted and accordingly it was held that Section 7(1-A) was inapplicable. Though Shri Choudhary sought to impress upon us that the land is fallow and therefore, the land falls within Section 7(1-A), that would be seen under the recital and the grant that would establish that the lands were assigned by a grant for special cultivation. Under the Assam Act of 1964, with a view to remove the ambiguity as to the "special cultivation" under sub-section (2) of Section 11, the expression has been defined to mean cultivation which involves, either owing to the nature of the crop or owing to the process of cultivation, a much larger expenditure of capital per acre than is incurred by most of the cultivators in the State and includes cultivation of tea. It would be seen that the special cultivation was meant to include cultivation involving higher capital outlay per acre than the expenditure incurred for cultivation by the cultivators in the State and also a cultivation of the tea which against the special cultivation involves higher investment of higher capital outlay. In view of the concurrent findings recorded by the Reference Court as well as the High Court that the land remained as fallow, uncultivated or barren land, necessarily the conclusion would be that the grant contained that the land was meant for special cultivation. Consequently, Section 7(1) has no application to the determination of the compensation as per the prevailing market value as on the date of the acquisition under the Act. We do not find that the Act is arbitrary. The Full Bench of five Judges in the above judgment, per majority, has elaborately gone into the question and concluded that Section 7(1-A) is not arbitrary. The reason appears to be that the land having been assigned by the Government, when it is needed for a public purpose, what the assignee would get in return is the land revenue; after use and enjoyment thereof, he would be compensated with the payment of the land revenue envisaged under Section 7(1-A) of the Act. It is settled law by a catena of judgments of this Court including one by the Constitution Bench that the prescription of the principle for determination of the compensation is not violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. Even in Bhim Singhji v. Union of India, the Constitution Bench of this Court has held that the payment of compensation for the surplus vacant land acquired under the Ceiling Act under Section 6(11) in the sum of Rs 2, 00, 000 was not illusory. Considered from this perspective, we hold that the determination of the compensation under Section 7(1-A) is not violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. The majority of the Full Bench of five Judges of the Assam High Court has rightly concluded the issue. Accordingly, we hold that there is no illegality in the impugned judgment. Moreover, when the High Court has consistently interpreted a local law in a particular way, this Court would be slow to disturb their interpretation unless compelling circumstances so warrant. The High Court has not applied wrong principle of law in determining the compensation warranting interference.
0[ds]5. The said ratio was applied to the facts in this case and it was held that since the lands were fallow uncultivated lands they got attracted and accordingly it was held that Section 7(1-A) was inapplicable. Though Shri Choudhary sought to impress upon us that the land is fallow and therefore, the land falls within Section 7(1-A), that would be seen under the recital and the grant that would establish that the lands were assigned by a grant for special cultivation. Under the Assam Act of 1964, with a view to remove the ambiguity as to the "special cultivation" under sub-section (2) of Section 11, the expression has been defined to mean cultivation which involves, either owing to the nature of the crop or owing to the process of cultivation, a much larger expenditure of capital per acre than is incurred by most of the cultivators in the State and includes cultivation of tea. It would be seen that the special cultivation was meant to include cultivation involving higher capital outlay per acre than the expenditure incurred for cultivation by the cultivators in the State and also a cultivation of the tea which against the special cultivation involves higher investment of higher capital outlay. In view of the concurrent findings recorded by the Reference Court as well as the High Court that the land remained as fallow, uncultivated or barren land, necessarily the conclusion would be that the grant contained that the land was meant for special cultivation. Consequently, Section 7(1) has no application to the determination of the compensation as per the prevailing market value as on the date of the acquisition under the Act. We do not find that the Act is arbitrary. The Full Bench of five Judges in the above judgment, per majority, has elaborately gone into the question and concluded that Section 7(1-A) is not arbitrary. The reason appears to be that the land having been assigned by the Government, when it is needed for a public purpose, what the assignee would get in return is the land revenue; after use and enjoyment thereof, he would be compensated with the payment of the land revenue envisaged under Section 7(1-A) of the Act. It is settled law by a catena of judgments of this Court including one by the Constitution Bench that the prescription of the principle for determination of the compensation is not violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. Even in Bhim Singhji v. Union of India, the Constitution Bench of this Court has held that the payment of compensation for the surplus vacant land acquired under the Ceiling Act under Section 6(11) in the sum of Rs 2, 00, 000 was not illusory. Considered from this perspective, we hold that the determination of the compensation under Section 7(1-A) is not violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. The majority of the Full Bench of five Judges of the Assam High Court has rightly concluded the issue. Accordingly, we hold that there is no illegality in the impugned judgment. Moreover, when the High Court has consistently interpreted a local law in a particular way, this Court would be slow to disturb their interpretation unless compelling circumstances so warrant. The High Court has not applied wrong principle of law in determining the compensation warranting interference
### Instruction:
Evaluate the case proceeding to forecast the court's decision (1 for yes, 0 for no), and elucidate the reasoning behind this prediction with important textual evidence from the case.

### Input:
lands were requisitioned. On the other hand, the objectors witnesses, some of whom are official witnesses, said that at the time of requisition the lands were lying patty. I, therefore, find no substance in the argument that the lands were not fallow, uncultivated or not utilised at the time when these were requisitioned." * 4. After elaborate consideration, it was held that the land was fallow, uncultivated and not unutilised at the time when the property was requisitioned. The Division Bench of the High Court again elaborately considered the nature of the grant, nature of the acquisition and the nature of the factual possession of the land as on the date of the requisition and it relied upon another Division Bench judgment of that Court in First Appeals Nos. 67-68 of 1969 decided on 23-2-1982 and concluded thus. "The expression in the case of land with respect to which any settlement has been made for special cultivation or which is included in any grant, if such land is lying fallow or uncultivated or is not utilised for the purpose for which the grant or settlement was made or for the purposes unidentical thereto, has to be given coherent and pragmatic interpretation, the words fallow or cultivated also being understood in the context of the concept of special cultivation for which the grant was meant. Fallow according to the Websters New Twentieth Century Dictionary, means land that has been lying a year or more untilled or unseeded to kill weeds, make the soil richer etc., land which has been ploughed or tilled without sowing it for a season. It means left uncultivated or unplanted. According to the same dictionary, utilisation means utilising or being utilised. To utilise is to profitably account or use, to make useful, as to utilise natural resources. Thus, all the three expressions, namely, fallow, uncultivated and not utilised have to be understood in the context of special cultivation for which the grant was made. Cultivation of the land for a purpose foreign to special cultivation or utilisation of the land for a purpose different from that which the grant was made, would be as much cultivation or unutilisationApplying the above principle we do not find any infirmity in the findings of the Reference Court that the land involved in this case was covered by Section 7(1-A) of the Act and it would not fall under Section 7(1) of the Act. In this view of the matter the sale deeds and the Jamabandi classification which does not indicate the use of the land become irrelevant. Besides, the Jamabandi is dated 5-11-1959 while the land was requisitioned in 1954 and subsequently acquired in 1959 by notification dated 13-2-1959." 5. The said ratio was applied to the facts in this case and it was held that since the lands were fallow uncultivated lands they got attracted and accordingly it was held that Section 7(1-A) was inapplicable. Though Shri Choudhary sought to impress upon us that the land is fallow and therefore, the land falls within Section 7(1-A), that would be seen under the recital and the grant that would establish that the lands were assigned by a grant for special cultivation. Under the Assam Act of 1964, with a view to remove the ambiguity as to the "special cultivation" under sub-section (2) of Section 11, the expression has been defined to mean cultivation which involves, either owing to the nature of the crop or owing to the process of cultivation, a much larger expenditure of capital per acre than is incurred by most of the cultivators in the State and includes cultivation of tea. It would be seen that the special cultivation was meant to include cultivation involving higher capital outlay per acre than the expenditure incurred for cultivation by the cultivators in the State and also a cultivation of the tea which against the special cultivation involves higher investment of higher capital outlay. In view of the concurrent findings recorded by the Reference Court as well as the High Court that the land remained as fallow, uncultivated or barren land, necessarily the conclusion would be that the grant contained that the land was meant for special cultivation. Consequently, Section 7(1) has no application to the determination of the compensation as per the prevailing market value as on the date of the acquisition under the Act. We do not find that the Act is arbitrary. The Full Bench of five Judges in the above judgment, per majority, has elaborately gone into the question and concluded that Section 7(1-A) is not arbitrary. The reason appears to be that the land having been assigned by the Government, when it is needed for a public purpose, what the assignee would get in return is the land revenue; after use and enjoyment thereof, he would be compensated with the payment of the land revenue envisaged under Section 7(1-A) of the Act. It is settled law by a catena of judgments of this Court including one by the Constitution Bench that the prescription of the principle for determination of the compensation is not violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. Even in Bhim Singhji v. Union of India, the Constitution Bench of this Court has held that the payment of compensation for the surplus vacant land acquired under the Ceiling Act under Section 6(11) in the sum of Rs 2, 00, 000 was not illusory. Considered from this perspective, we hold that the determination of the compensation under Section 7(1-A) is not violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. The majority of the Full Bench of five Judges of the Assam High Court has rightly concluded the issue. Accordingly, we hold that there is no illegality in the impugned judgment. Moreover, when the High Court has consistently interpreted a local law in a particular way, this Court would be slow to disturb their interpretation unless compelling circumstances so warrant. The High Court has not applied wrong principle of law in determining the compensation warranting interference.

### Response:
0

### Explanation:
5. The said ratio was applied to the facts in this case and it was held that since the lands were fallow uncultivated lands they got attracted and accordingly it was held that Section 7(1-A) was inapplicable. Though Shri Choudhary sought to impress upon us that the land is fallow and therefore, the land falls within Section 7(1-A), that would be seen under the recital and the grant that would establish that the lands were assigned by a grant for special cultivation. Under the Assam Act of 1964, with a view to remove the ambiguity as to the "special cultivation" under sub-section (2) of Section 11, the expression has been defined to mean cultivation which involves, either owing to the nature of the crop or owing to the process of cultivation, a much larger expenditure of capital per acre than is incurred by most of the cultivators in the State and includes cultivation of tea. It would be seen that the special cultivation was meant to include cultivation involving higher capital outlay per acre than the expenditure incurred for cultivation by the cultivators in the State and also a cultivation of the tea which against the special cultivation involves higher investment of higher capital outlay. In view of the concurrent findings recorded by the Reference Court as well as the High Court that the land remained as fallow, uncultivated or barren land, necessarily the conclusion would be that the grant contained that the land was meant for special cultivation. Consequently, Section 7(1) has no application to the determination of the compensation as per the prevailing market value as on the date of the acquisition under the Act. We do not find that the Act is arbitrary. The Full Bench of five Judges in the above judgment, per majority, has elaborately gone into the question and concluded that Section 7(1-A) is not arbitrary. The reason appears to be that the land having been assigned by the Government, when it is needed for a public purpose, what the assignee would get in return is the land revenue; after use and enjoyment thereof, he would be compensated with the payment of the land revenue envisaged under Section 7(1-A) of the Act. It is settled law by a catena of judgments of this Court including one by the Constitution Bench that the prescription of the principle for determination of the compensation is not violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. Even in Bhim Singhji v. Union of India, the Constitution Bench of this Court has held that the payment of compensation for the surplus vacant land acquired under the Ceiling Act under Section 6(11) in the sum of Rs 2, 00, 000 was not illusory. Considered from this perspective, we hold that the determination of the compensation under Section 7(1-A) is not violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. The majority of the Full Bench of five Judges of the Assam High Court has rightly concluded the issue. Accordingly, we hold that there is no illegality in the impugned judgment. Moreover, when the High Court has consistently interpreted a local law in a particular way, this Court would be slow to disturb their interpretation unless compelling circumstances so warrant. The High Court has not applied wrong principle of law in determining the compensation warranting interference
