INTRODUCTION
The history of Assam tea is often credited to the British colonial regime, specifically, Robert Bruce who is believed to have discovered it. This “discovery” of tea reflects western triumphalism as it is indigenous to the region, and was being harvested by various local tribes such as the Tai Singpho and Tai Khamti for several centuries before British arrival. It was Charles Alexander Bruce who established the commercial tea industry in the 1830s, following the Treaty of Yandabo and the subsequent annexation of Assam, Manipur and neighbouring regions.1 In its nascent stage, the industry faced a severe shortage of labour owing to the self-sufficient economy of the locals, who were unwilling and uncompelled to leave home in search of work.2 To address this, plantation owners imported cheap labour from parts of India, primarily from present day Jharkhand, Bihar, Orissa, Madhya Pradesh, Andhra Pradesh, and Uttar Pradesh. They also encouraged migration of entire families to ensure the utilisation of labour of every family member, and to secure the reproduction of the next generation of labourers.3 It is alleged that these labourers were recruited under a coercive indenture system or via false promises of a better life, including the deceptive prospect of land ownership.
As India completed its 78th year of independence, the nation has finally taken concrete steps toward securing justice for the tea labourers of Assam, collectively known as the Tea Tribes. The Assam Fixation of Ceiling on Land Holdings (Amendment) Act, 2025 (hereinafter “2025 Amendment Act”) serves as the primary instrument for this long-awaited redress. In essence, the Act allows the state to acquire tea land and grant ownership rights to resident Tea Tribes, albeit limited. Before analysing the nuances of this amendment, it is essential to contextualise these changes within the broader framework of land ownership in India and more particularly, in the state of Assam.
DOCTRINE OF EMINENT DOMAIN AND LAND RIGHTS IN ASSAM
Absolute ownership of land is a myth. The right to property underwent a metamorphic journey – moving from a fundamental right to a mere constitutional right under Article 300A, added by the Constitution (Forty-fourth) Amendment Act, 1978. It mandates that “No person shall be deprived of his property save by authority of law”, which makes the right to property a derogable right in the face of sovereign state actions. Thus, the doctrine of eminent domain which connotes the supreme power of the state to take away the property of any person in the interest of general public, is intrinsically woven into the constitutional framework.4 However, various judicial pronouncements5 have established that this power shall only be exercised by the state in accordance with procedure established by law. The word “law” used in Article 300A would mean a validly enacted law by a competent legislature6 being just, fair and reasonable.7
In a nutshell, ownership of land can only be maintained in the absence of the state’s decision to acquire the same in public interest. “Land” falls under Entry 18 of List II of the Seventh Schedule of the Indian Constitution; this marks it as a state subject and the state legislative assemblies are conferred with the power to make laws in connection to it. Consequently, every state in India has its own set of laws to govern land related matters. In Assam, land is absolutely owned by the state as established under the Assam Land and Revenue Regulation, 1886 (hereinafter “the Regulation”). It means that the state is ultimate owner of all land and individuals only possess certain specific rights or interests granted and recognised by the state.
The legal basis of this claim can be found in Section 6 of the Regulation which explicitly states that no right of any description can be acquired by any person over land except those specifically defined in the Regulation.8 Thus, the state retains residual power and ownership of land rights not specified under it.
SPECIAL CULTIVATION LANDS OF ASSAM
The “Tea Lands” of Assam enjoy a distinct legal identity as they are classified as “special cultivation land”9 unlike ordinary agricultural land used for food crops under the Assam Fixation of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1956 (hereinafter “the Ceiling Act”). The primary reason for allotting such classification is to provide for ceiling exemptions and protection from state acquisitions. The Ceiling Act caps individual land holdings at 50 bighas; however, land held and utilised for tea cultivation and its ancillary purposes is exempt from this limit, allowing estates to hold thousands of bighas. Furthermore, such lands are not allowed to be used for any other purpose other than tea cultivation.
Under the Ceiling Act, the government of Assam is empowered to acquire surplus lands; however, Section 2(2)(a) of the Act explicitly states that the provisions of the Act do not apply to lands held and utilised for the special cultivation of tea and purposes ancillary thereto. The definition of “ancillary purposes” can be found under Section 4(2)10 which included “Labour Lines” prior to the 2025 amendment. Labour Lines are the designated residential housing colonies located within the boundary of tea estates in Assam which houses plantation workers. Thus, we see that without amending the Ceiling Act, the state could not have possibly acquire lands falling in these Labour Lines to redistribute amongst the Tea Tribes.
JUSTICE TO THE LABOUR LINES RESIDENTS
The 2025 Amendment Act fundamentally alters the legal status of “labour lines” by excluding them from the category of lands deemed “ancillary to tea cultivation”, thereby enabling their separate acquisition and settlement. Under the newly inserted Section 7A, the State Government is empowered to acquire lands under labour lines of tea estates, provided that the proprietors are adequately compensated. Subsequently, section 17A authorises settlement of such acquired lands with eligible tea garden workers who are currently in occupation of the premises. Such lands shall be heritable but remain untransferable by any form of alienation for a period of 20 years or as notified by the Government. Even after the expiry of this “20-year-lock-in period”, alienation of such land shall only be done in the favour of a tea garden worker residing in the same tea estate.
To avoid confusion, the state legislature has also defined who shall be considered a “tea garden worker” under Section 3(q)11 which includes “permanent and temporary worker and decendants of tea garden workers residing within the labour line area of a tea estate on the date of commencement of the Act, who belongs to Tea tribes and Adivasi communities as notified by the Government from time to time and whose occupation and entitlement to land is recognised under the provisions of section 7A and section 17A of this Act.”
While many argue that the 20-year-lock-in period under section 17A of the Ceiling Act is unreasonable, I contend that this restriction on the “right to alienate” is legally justified under the doctrine of parens patriae. This doctrine recognises the inherent authority of the State to act as a legal guardian for those who are unable to care for themselves. It is a key principle of the modern welfare state and is frequently invoked by Indian courts to safeguard those at risk of exploitation.
In light of this, section 17A of the Ceiling Act serves as an embodiment of statutory paternalism which can prevent the marginalised Tea Tribes from falling prey to predatory “land mafias” or local elites or the tea estate owners themselves. By de-liquefying the newly procured lands, the State ensures that land remains a generational asset rather than a short-term commodity. However, whether such a lengthy moratorium satisfies the judicial test of proportionality remains a separate legal challenge – one that will likely be settled in the courtrooms of future.
The constitutionality of the 2025 Amendment Act along with its appended Rules has been questioned in Indian Tea Association vs. The State of Assam and Anr. (2026)12 on the ground that “labour lines” are inseparable from tea estate operations, without which the functional integrity of tea production would be seriously impaired. It has also been contended by the petitioner that owners of tea estates fear deprivation of their property without adequate compensation, a premise that has been vehemently opposed by the learned Advocate General of Assam. Citing Deoraj13 the Gauhati High Court vide an order dated 04.02.2026, refused to stay the 2025 Amendment Act since the present case does not fall within permitted rare category of cases accompanied by compelling circumstances, where the injury complained of is immediate and pressing, wherein an interim relief is of absolute necessity. The final outcome of the case is still pending.
FRICTION POINTS OF THE 2025 AMENDMENT ACT
Although built upon noble intentions, the provisions of the 2025 Amendment Act risk creating a “gilded cage” for tea garden workers and their families. First, while the Act allows these lands to be mortgaged, it restricts the pool of eligible financial institutions (such as banks, cooperative societies etc.) to nationalised banks, cooperative societies registered under the Assam Cooperative Society Act, 1949 or other financial institutions approved by the state government.14 This limitation may stifle financial liquidity, as workers may find themselves unable to access competitive credit or diverse banking services. Second, the 20-year moratorium on land alienation effectively anchors tea garden workers to the geography of the tea estate for two decades. This can potentially conflict with their fundamental rights to move freely and reside anywhere within the territory of India, as guaranteed under Article 19(1)(d) and (e) of the Indian Constitution. In seeking to protect the community from land loss, the state may inadvertently be restricting their socio-economic mobility.
The amendment also introduces significant infrastructure and right-of-way conflicts. Once the state acquires these labour lines, the residential plots effectively become “enclaves” of civil land sequestered within private tea estates. This geographical fragmentation creates a legal labyrinth regarding easement rights, such as access to roads, electricity grids and water pipelines, which must traverse private company property to reach the new landowners.
Another fascinating legal conflict arises from the continued operation of the Plantations Labour Act, 1951 (hereinafter “PLA Act”) in its current form, without any corresponding amendments to align with the 2025 reforms. This piece of legislation governs the welfare of plantation workers across India, specifically designed to regulate the “in-kind” components of their wages. If the 2025 Amendment Act enables granting of land titles (pattas) to tea garden workers, a supplementary amendment must be made to section 15 of the PLA Act which mandates that every employer provide and maintain necessary housing accommodation for workers and their families residing on the plantation. In the absence of such amendment, a profound clash of interests emerges: once a worker becomes a private landowner, should he also be entitled under the PLA Act to separate housing by the company?
Most critically, the fallout of this amendment could undermine the financial viability of Assam’s tea industry. Tea cultivation is a capital-intensive15, seasonal enterprise. During the lean winter months when production halts, companies frequently leverage their total land acreage as collateral for massive bank loans to keep the industry afloat. Reducing their “ancillary land” might lower their credit rating, straining an already struggling industry.
CONCLUSION
The Assam Fixation of Ceiling on Land Holdings (Amendment) Act, 2025 stands as a profound attempt at restorative justice, aiming to remedy centuries old exploitation of Tea Tribes by the British regime. It allows for the State to acquire land falling under labour lines and distribute them amongst eligible tea garden workers. However, for this amendment to be truly transformative, it must be supported by a secondary wave of connective legislation – one that clarifies easement rights, provides specialised rural credit and harmonises employer obligations with worker ownership. India’s 78th year of independence has brought the promise of land; now, the state must ensure that this land becomes a bridge to prosperity, rather than an isolated island of restricted rights.
*****
Footnotes
1. Paresh Borah, Colonial State, Hegemony, History and The Identity of Tea Tribes in Assam, 8 International Journal of Scientific and Technology Research 1098 (2019).
2. P. Griffiths, The History of Indian Tea Industry 267 (Weidenfeld and Nicolson 1967).
3. Paresh, supra note 1.
4. See Usha Ramanathan, A Word on Eminent Domain, in Displaced by Development – Confronting Marginalisation and Gender Injustice 133 (Lyla Mehta ed. Sage 2009).
5. Bajranga v State of Madhya Pradesh 2021 SCC OnLine SC 27; Ravindran v The District Collector, Vellore District W.P. No. 19428 of 2020; Narayan Prasad v State of Chhattisgarh W.P.C. No. 306 of 2017.
6. Bishambhar Dayal Chandra Mohan and Others v State of Uttar Pradesh and Others (1982) 1 SCC 39.
7. Delhi Airtech Services (P) Ltd. v State of Uttar Pradesh (2011) 7 SCC 354.
8. The Assam Land and Revenue Regulation, 1886, § 6, Regulation 1 of 1886, Acts of Assam State Legislative Assembly (India).
9. The Assam Fixation of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1956, § 4 (2), No. 1 of 1957, Acts of Assam State Legislative Assembly (India).
10. Prior to the 2025 Amendment, purposes ancillary to special cultivation included: Land used for factory building, Land used for staff buildings including labour line, Land used for roads, bridges and drains within the tea estates, Land used for nurseries including shade trees, Land used for hospitals, dispensaries, creches, recreation centres and playgrounds, Land used for religious institution, burial or cremation ground, Land used for any other building built by management as a statutory requirement, Land used for seed bari, Land used as may be needed for rotational plantation to maintain the planted areas as on the commencement of the Ceiling Act, but not exceeding 7 ½ percent of the planted area, Lands lying within the boundaries of the actual planted area excluding tenanted khet lands, Lands used for bamboo baris but not exceeding 50 bighas.
11. The Assam Fixation of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1956, § 3 (q), No. 1 of 1957, Acts of Assam State Legislative Assembly (India).
12. Indian Tea Association v The State of Assam and Another WP(C) 501 of 2026.
13. Deoraj v State of Maharashtra and Others (2004) 4 SCC 697.
14. The Assam Fixation of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1956, § 17A (2) proviso, No. 1 of 1957, Acts of Assam State Legislative Assembly (India).
15. Afshana Parveen and Nandita Debnath, Tea Industry of Assam: The Past Glory, Present Challenges and Future Prospects, 11(2) IJFANS IJFNS 1349, 1353 (2022).