UNION OF INDIA Vs. DISTRICT JUDGE UDHAMPUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal arises from a case which had a chequered career. The appellant addressed a letter on 8-2-1968 to the Deputy Commissioner, Udhampur, State of Jammu and Kashmir enquiring about the availability of land for extension of Air Field, Udhampur. The Additional Secretary, Government of Jammu and Kashmir, wrote a letter to the Ministry of Defence that 2027 kanals and 18 marlas of land was available for acquisition at an approximate cost of Rs 12,62,655.32 paise subject to normal rise or decrease in that amount, which may occur on the determination of the market value. The Government had agreed and accorded sanction on 27-7-1970 for asum of Rs 13,34,056 for acquisition of the land. Thereafter the Government of Jammu and Kashmir issued notification under Section 21 on 16-12-1971 requisitioning 2134 kanals of the said land situated in Village and Tehsil Udhampur. A notification under Section 7 of the Jammu and Kashmir Requisitioning and Acquisition of Immovable Property Act, 1968 (J and K Act 35 of 1968 (for short 'the Act') was published in SRO No. 843 dated 16-12-1972. Thereafter exercising the power under Section 16 of the Act the Deputy Commissioner, Udhampur was appointed as a competent authority under the Act. He determined market value Rs 5100 per kanal for Class 'a' lands in all the villages, Rs 4500 per kanal for Class 'b' lands in all the villages and Rs 4800 per kanal for Class 'c' in all the villages. In addition he awarded 15% solatium and interest at 4% from 16-12-1972 to 25-6-1973, the date on which possession was taken. The compensation had come to about Rs 1,21,00,000. A letter was issued to the subordinate officers for their approval. Since the appellants had not approved the determination of the market value at the said rate, they sought a reference under Section 8 of the Act. The District Judge was appointed as an Arbitrator under Section 8 (1) (a). At the beginning of the enquiry proceeding, held by the District Judge to determine the market value, the respondents filed an objection before the arbitrator contending that the award passed by the competent authority was an offer and it was acceptable to them. Since the requisition and acquisition had been made by the competent authority for and on behalf of the appellants they had no right to object to the award made by the competent authority. Therefore, the enquiry to be held by the District Judge as Arbitrator was without jurisdiction. But when the enquiry of the Arbitrator proceeded, without deciding the respondents' objections, they filed a writ petition in 1975. The learned Single Judge in his order dated 22-2-1979 held that the award passed by the competent authority being an offer, when the respondents had accepted that offer, it must be deemed to be one made under Rule 9 read with Section 8 (1) (a) of the Act. Therefore, the appellants had no right to object to the offer made by the competent authority. Accordingly he directed the competent authority to enter into an agreement with the respondents in Form 'k'. Dissatisfied with that order the appellants filed LPA No. 35 of 1979. The Division Bench, by its order dated 27-4-1983, while upholding the view of the Single Judge that the award of the competent authority was an offer and that the appellants were bound by the offer, set aside the direction given to enter into an agreement in Form 'k', instead directed the District Judge to decide the objections filed by the appellants. Thereafter, the District Judge overruled the objections and held that the respondents had accepted the offer. Though no direct finding was recorded that the offer became enforceable in consequence of rejecting the reference under Section 8 (1) (b) , it must be concluded that the appellants were bound by the offer made by the competent authority and it would be one enforceable under Section 8 (1) (a) of the Act. The appellants filed WP No. 295 of 1984 and the Division Bench by its order dated 8-5-1985 while affirming the view of the Single Judge and the Division Bench in the earlierproceedings held that the order passed by the District Judge is valid and the locus standi of the appellants to file the writ petition was doubted accepting the stand taken by the respondents that the appellants were not the persons interested under Section 2 (d) of the Act and dismissed the writ petition. Thus this appeal by special leave.

(2.) Section 2 (b) defines 'competent authority' to mean any person or authority appointed by the Government by notification published in the Government Gazette to perform the functions of the competent authority under the Act for such area as may be specified in the notification. Section 16 of the Act empowers the Government to delegate to the authorised officer the exercise of its powers and duties under the Act, subject to such circumstances and under such conditions, if any, as may be specified in the notification. In pursuance thereof, the competent authority was appointed to exercise the powers of the Government and to perform its duties under the Act. Section 21 of the Act provides the mode and procedure to requisition the immovable property situated in the State of Jammu and Kashmir "required by the Union Government in connection with the purpose of the Union" and when the requisition in this behalf is received by the State Government it shall notify that such property be requisitioned. Exercising the power under Section 21 followed by a notification issued under Section 7 (l) (a) , State Government acquired the said property for extension of the Air Field at Udhampur. Section 8 provides the procedure to determine the compensation, which reads thus:

(3.) The Government framed the rules, namely Requisitioning and Acquisition of Immovable Property Rules, 1969 which came into effect from5-1-1970 (for short 'the Rules'). Rule 9 is the relevant rule concerned in this case and reads thus: