NIROD BARAN BANERJEE Vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF HAZARIBAGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal by certificate is directed against a judgment for the Patna High Court dated 13-5-1968 dismissing the appeal filed by the appellant before the High Court.

(2.) The case arose out of land acquisition proceedings taken by the Government in respect of the land in dispute which comprised 84.31 acres. On 21-9-1960, the Collector by his award allowed a compensation of Rs. 9666.35 which along with solatium and other charges totalled to a sum of Rs. 20,281.67. The appellant claimed Rs. 2,80,000/- as the market value of the land acquired. On 11-10-1960, a reference was made to the District Judge under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. Before the District Judge could take up the proceedings for hearing, the matter was agreed by the parties, to be referred to a Board of Arbitrators consisting of three persons of whom one was appointed by the appellant. Accordingly, joint petition for referring the case to the arbitrator was made on 19-12-1961 and on the next day, dated 20-12-1961 the case was referred for arbitration to the board. On 22-5-1962, the Board gave an award confirming the compensation given by the Collector. Having thus lost his case before the Board, the appellant moved the District Court for setting aside the award. His application was dismissed by the Additional Sub-Judge to whom the case was transferred in the meantime and hence an appeal was filed by him before the High Court which was also dismissed. Thereafter the appellant approached the High Court for granting a certificate of fitness for appeal to this Court and it was at that stage that for the first time he raised the point that the arbitration agreement was not in accordance with the provisions of Art. 299 of the Constitution and that thus there being no Arbitration agreement in the eye of law, the award was invalid and liable to be set aside. The High Court appears to have been impressed by the point raised before it and granted leave as prayed for. Hence this appeal before us.

(3.) Dr.Y.S. Chitale, learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that on the admitted facts there was no separate arbitration agreement, that the resolution of the Government incorporating the agreement of both the parties that the matter be referred to the Board of Arbitrators would be deemed to be the arbitration agreement, that the resolution not having been authenticated in accordance with the provisions of Article 299 of the Constitution of India was invalid and that therefore the award which followed it would also be invalid. In support of his argument the learned counsel relied on a decision of this Court in the case of Mulamchand v. State of Madhya Pradesh (1963) 3 SCR 214 at 221) where this Court while considering the scope and the ambit of Article 299 observed as follows:-