NAYUDU, C. J. : This first appeal is directed against an award of the Subordinate Judge, Upper Assam Districts at Jorhat, uphold­ing the award made by the Collector of Sib­sagar, Jorhat, and dismissing the reference made by the Collector at the instance of the appel­lant-claimant Hemendra Prosad Baruah. The simple point that falls to be considered is appeal is whether the compensation in this case under S. 7 (1-A) of the Assam Land (Requisition and Acquisition) Act, 1948 (Assam Act 25 of 1948) (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), has been correctly awarded. (3) Mr. Ghose, the learned counsel for the appellant, has raised two main points: Firstly, he contended that the provisions of Sec. 7 (1-A) as also the entire Act are ultra vires of the Constitution and, therefore, it could not be given effect to and secondly, that assuming that the Act is constitutional and valid and the pro­visions of Section 7 (1-A) of the Act could be given effect to, then the compensation should nave been fixed on the basis of the market value of the property acquired and not according to Section 7 (1-A). (4) Before we deal these points, it will be useful to refer to the relevant provisions of Section 7, which are as follows:- " 7 (1) Subject to the provisions of sub­section (1-A), wherever any land is acquired under Section 4, there shall be paid compen­sation the amount of which shall be determined by the Collector in the manner and in accord­ance with the principles set out in sub-section (1) of Section 23 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894: * * * * (1-A) In the case of land included in any grant or settlement made for special cultiva­tion, if such land is lying fallow or uncultivated or is not utilised for the purpose for which the grant or settlement was made for the purposes incidental thereto, then the compensation pay­able for acquisition of such land together with trees (if any) standing on it shall be an amount equal to ten times the annual land revenue, which, on the date of publication of the notice referred to in sub-section (1) of Section 4, is or would have been payable if such land is or had been assessable to revenue at full rates: Provided that, where any amount was ori­ginally paid to Government by the grantee as price or premium for the land, an additional amount equal to the amount originally paid by the grantee shall also be payable. Explanation.-'Special cultivation' means 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." (5) As regards the constitutional validity of the Act as a whole, this question was consider­ed at great length by a Special Bench of this Court in the case of Gaur Nitay Tea Co. y. State of Assam, AIR 1966 Assam 58 and therein it was held that the Act was constitutionally valid and no exception could be taken to the provisions thereof. This decision is binding on us and we have to proceed on the assumption that the decision is correct. y. State of Assam, AIR 1966 Assam 58 and therein it was held that the Act was constitutionally valid and no exception could be taken to the provisions thereof. This decision is binding on us and we have to proceed on the assumption that the decision is correct. Further, the Act came up for consideration before their Lordships of the Supreme Court in the case of Taresh Chandra Chatterjee v. State of Assam, AIR 1962 SC 167 and the validity and consti­tutionality of the Act were upheld by the Supreme Court in that decision. Hence, there is no substance in the contention raised by Mr. Ghose. (6) Mr. Ghose invited our attention to the decision in the case of 'Deputy Commissioner and Collector, Kamrup v. Durga Nath Sarma', 1967 SC (Notes) 402 = ( AIR 1968 SC 394 ). That was a case in which the validity of the Assam Acquisition of Land for Flood Control and Prevention of Erosion Act, 1955 (Assam Act No. 6 of 1955) came up for consideration and it was held by the Supreme Court that this Act was ultra vires, upholding the view of a Bench of this Court. Mr. Ghose contended that the provisions of that Act were similar to the Act and, therefore, the view expressed in the decision of the Special Bench of this Court referred to above might require reconsidera­tion. So far as the present proceedings go, we are bound by the decision of the Special Bench of this Court, which dealt with and decided on the validity of the Act, with which we are con­cerned now, and it is not, therefore, necessary that we should attempt to have the above deci­sion of this Court re-examined. (7) As regards the second point raised by Mr. Ghose, the decision would rest on the question whether the 100 bighas of land which are acquired out of the grant of the land made in favour of the appellant were lying fallow or uncultivated or not utilised for the purpose for which the settlement was made or for the purposes incidental thereto. If one or the other of these requirements is fulfilled, then the award impugned in this appeal must be held to have been validity made. If one or the other of these requirements is fulfilled, then the award impugned in this appeal must be held to have been validity made. If on the other hand the land had been cultivated or utilised for the purpose for which the grant or settle­ment was made, that is, for growing tea or for the purpose incidental thereto, then the com­pensation can be fixed on the basis of the mar­ket value of the land. Section 7 (1-A) would not then be attracted or become applicable. (8) In the instant case, as pointed out by the learned Senior Government Advocate, there is no mention made in the petition for reference to Court submitted on behalf of the appellant to the Collector, that the land was being uti­lised for purposes of growing tea or for pur­poses incidental thereto. Further, we notice that in the various applications made to the Deputy Commissioner, the land has been des­cribed as uncultivated. In Exts. B and B-l at pp. 30-31 of the paper-book, which is a letter dated 23-6-1950 from the Manager of Haroochari, T. E., belonging to the appellant, to the Deputy Commissioner, Sibsagar, the extent of land granted under the two grants-one for Sarucharai Mouza and the other for Porbotia Mouza is set out. Therein the Manager stated that the Deputy Commissioner in his letter dated 26-5-1960 had shown that the total area of 653-2-0 of land of Porbotia Mouza under 30 years' grants was lying uncultivated. The Manager then stated in this letter that regard­ing Porbotia Mouza the whole 653-2-0 are dense forests from where they get their require­ment of timber and firewood, and that consi­dering that their area under tea was 538 acres, they need the whole area for supply of timber and firewood. Notwithstanding this he stated therein that the Tea Estate will be glad to offer 100 bighas of this plot (Porbotia Mouza) for requisition. Again at p. 35 of the paper-book, we find a letter dated 7-6-1951 addressed by Sri H. P. Barooah of Haroochari Tea Co. to the Deputy Commissioner, Sibsagar, Jorhat, referring to this land, in which the heading is mentioned as 'surrender of unused land'. (9) It is seen from the above documents that the land which is requisitioned partake of the character of unused land. to the Deputy Commissioner, Sibsagar, Jorhat, referring to this land, in which the heading is mentioned as 'surrender of unused land'. (9) It is seen from the above documents that the land which is requisitioned partake of the character of unused land. It is true that in his evidence P.W. 1 Hemendra Prasad Barua, the appellant, stated that the trees which were standing on the acquired land were planted by the garden under the understanding between the Government and the tea industry. In the face of the documentary evidence containing admission by or on behalf of the appellant that the land in question was unused and unculti­vated, we do not attach any importance to this statement of P.W. 1. On the other hand, the very fact that Section 7 (1-A) says that compen­sation payable for acquisition of the land to­gether with trees (if any) standing on the land shall be an amount equal to ten times the annual land revenue, shows that the Legislature did not contemplate any special compensa­tion to be paid in respect of the trees over and above ten times the annual land revenue. Taking all these into consideration, we feel that the land has been kept unused and uncultivated and, therefore, Section 7 (1-A), in our opinion, has been rightly and correctly applied to this case. (10) It is contended that, although the land in question is not cultivated, still the forest on the land is essential for the maintenance of the tea garden and to meet the requirements of the labour of the tea garden, and thus the forest area must be deemed to be an area which is being used for the purpose incidental to the growth of tea. In view of the admissions made by the appellant as stated above, we do not consider it necessary to go into this question and come to a decision, although in an appropriate case we might do so. It is also pointed out that the Court below did not actually decide the matter on the evidence given on behalf of the appellant. But in the view we have taken and the circumstances pointed out above, we do not feel that the omission to give a finding ob this point would make any difference in the disposal of the case. But in the view we have taken and the circumstances pointed out above, we do not feel that the omission to give a finding ob this point would make any difference in the disposal of the case. (11) In the result, therefore, we are satisfied that the award of the Subordinate Judge is correct and calls for no interference. The appeal is accordingly dismissed, but we make no order as to costs. Appeal dismissed.