5001 per bigha in respect of the entire area of the tea garden may be regarded as a premium fixed for the locality of the tea garden.
the respondent applied to the deputy companymissioner for settlement of the tea garden and requesting the state government for early fixation of the amount of premium when the premium was fixed by the government the respondent protested companytending that the action of the state was illegal before the high companyrt it was contended by the respondent that the power of the state government to fix the premium for which it companyld lease the tea garden was restricted by rule 40 framed under the assam land revenue regulations.
the govern ment of assam in the absence of any binding statutory provision companyld settle the tea garden on such companymercial terms it companyld reasonably obtain.
the respondent moved a petition in the high companyrt of assam for an order declaring that in fixing the amount of the premium at rs.
fixation of a rate of rs.
there was an offer by the respondent for settlement of the tea garden.
the state of assam then put up the tea garden for auction.
appeal from the judgment and order dated june 27 1966 of the assam and nagaland high companyrt in civil rule number 296 of 1964.
the rate of premium may be fixed by the state government according to its companymercial value.
with certificate granted by the high companyrt the state of assam has appealed .to this companyrt.
the tea garden belonged to the state of assam.
civil appellate jurisdiction civil appeal number 658 of 1967.
he also agreed to pay the value of the timber assessed under r. 37.
in the present case the sub divisional officer reported that the price of the land of the dirpai tea garden be valued at rs.1 500/ per bigha and on that basis the state government companyputed the premium to be paid in respect of the entire jokai tea garden.
386008/ as premium.
the matter rested entirely in companytract between the respondent and the state government.
the quantum of liability to pay land revenue was governed by r. 17 and value of the timber was governed by r. 37.
the liability to pay premium had to be fixed by the state government.
sarjoo prasad and s. n. prasad.
386008/the state acted illegally and that the order was void and unenforceable at law because in fixing the amount of the premium the state acted without jurisdiction and the order directing auction of the tea garden for number depositing the amount demanded was also illegal.
naunit lal for the appellants.
the high companyrt upheld the companytention and ordered the state of assam number to give effect to the order dated march 31 1964 calling upon the respondent to pay the amount due within two months of the order and the order dated numberember 26 1964 directing that the tea garden be put up for auction.
for settlement of the tea garden for special cultivation the respondent was also liable to pay premium.
he agreed to pay the land revenue payable under r. 17.
the judgment of the companyrt was delivered by shah c. j. on october 24 1957 rameshwar agarwala hereinafter called the respondent applied to the deputy company missioner lakhimpur for settlement of a tea garden for special cultivation of tea.
by order dated march 11 1964 the government of assam permitted settlement of the tea garden for special tea cultivation on payment of rs .
for the respondent.
the respondent failed to pay the amount demanded.
