UNION OF INDIA Vs. USHA SODHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Cleavage in views of two Division Benches of this Court is the reason for the reference made to the Full Bench. Only question that needs determination is whether a Letter Patent Appeal under clause 10 of the Letters Patent applicable to the High Courts of Lahore, Punjab & Haryana and Delhi High Courts (in short Letters Patent) read with Section 5(1) of Delhi High Court Act, 1966 (in short High Court Act) is maintainable from a decision of a Single Judge of the High Court when exercising jurisdiction under Section 11 of the Requisition and Acquisition of Immovable Property Act, 1952 (in short, the Act).

(2.) In M/s Banwari Lal & Sons v. UOI., 3972 (2) ILR 521, a Division Bench held that decision of the Single Judge was appealable. It was held that the decision of the Single Judge was a judgment for the purpose of Clause 10 of the Letters Patent. But, later on in Banwari Lal & Sons v. Union of India, AIR 1981 DELHI 366, another Division Bench held that the decision of the Single Judge, was merely an award and thus reversing an award of the arbitrator, the Court was substituting its own award for the award passed by the Arbitrator. The earlier decision in Banwari Lal's case (supra) was treated to be in the nature of obiter. For the sake of convenience the two Banwari lal cases referred to above shall be hereafter referred to first Banwari Lal and second Banwari Lal case respectively.

(3.) Before going into the issue, it necessary to lake note of few provisions of the Act which have great relevance for deciding the same. Under the Act compensation has to be paid by the Government to the owner of the property which has been requisitioned. Quantum of compensation is determined by mutual negotiations. An Arbitrator is appointed to decide an issue under Section 8(l)(b) of the Act in the event of disagreement. Division of the Arbitrator can be challenged in appeal before the-High Court under Section 11 of the Act. Award was given in all these cases by the Arbitrator i.e. an Addl. District Judge. In each case an appeal was preferred before the learned Single Judge who has been pleased to dismiss the challenge on the ground that there was delay in filing a certifietl copy of the award. These LPAs have been filed against the decision of the learned Single Judge. A preliminary issue regarding maintainability of such appeal arose in view of the conflict of decision as noted above, and the matter was directed to be placed before a Full Bench and that is how these appeals are before us.