GOBINDA LAL DAGA Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners are the owners of premises No. 902 Barrackpore Trunk Road, 24-Parganas. A part of "the said premises was requisitioned under Section 29 (2) of the Defence of India Act, 1962 (Act 51 of 1962) on 30th September, 1965 for setting up a fire station at Kamarhati for Civil Defence purpose. The possession of the premises requisitioned, it appears, was taken on October 6, 1965. The petitioners submitted their claim for rent compensation at the rate of Rs. 2,500/- per month and electric charges at the rate of Rs. 175/- per month. The Additional Collector (North) Barasat, 24-Paraganas on June 10, 1968 fixed rent compensation at the rate of Rs. 227/- per month for the period from 1st of March 1968 to 28th February, 1969. The premises was derequisitioned on July 10, 1968 on the expiry of the Defence of India Act and, it is said, it was requisitioned again under the West Bengal Premises Requisition and Control (Temporary Provisions) Act, 1947 according to the petitioners. The 'petitioners were not satisfied with the determination of the rent compensation made by the Additional Collector as aforesaid and they prayed for a reference to arbitration under the provision of the Defence of India Act. The State of West Bengal accordingly by order dated 27th August, 1973 appointed Mr. S. Ahmed, Additional District and Sessions Judge, 24-Parganas as an Arbitrator for determination of compensation payable for such requisition of the property, that is, the requisition for the period from 6th October, 1965 to 9th July, 1968. As Mr. Ahmed was transferred, the State Government by subsequent order dated June 27, 1974 appointed in his place Mr. L. K. Pal, Additional District and Sessions Judge, 24-Par-ganas as an Arbitrator for such determination. The award was, it appears, made by the Arbitrator on 13th September, 1974 and same rate of compensation was awarded as rent compensation for the aforesaid period, According to the petitioners, no notice of appointment of Mr. Pal as an Arbitrator was served on the petitioners nor they were given any notice of the proceeding before him. On enquiry through their advocate the petitioners came to know on March 14, 1975 about the award that was passed ex parte as stated above. On April 2, 1975 the petitioners requested the Arbitrator to file his award in Court under the provision of Section 14 (2) of the Arbitration Act, 1940. On his failure to do so, the petitioners on April 16, 1975 filed an application before the District Judge at Alipore giving rise to Misc. Case No 75 of 1975 for a direction on the Arbitrator to file the award in Court. This application came up for hearing before the District Judge and by his order dated August 16, 1975 the application was dismissed as not maintainable. The learned Judge held that in view of the provisions of Section 25 of the Requisitioning and Acquisition of Immovable Property Act, 1952 (Act XXX of 1952) which was inserted by an amendment Act 31 of 1968, the provisions of the Arbitration Act did not apply to proceeding before the Arbitrator. Accordingly, the Court had no jurisdiction to entertain, consider or dispose of such application. The petitioner have obtained this Rule against the aforesaid order.

(2.) Mr. Bhabra, learned advocate appearing for the petitioners, submitted that the learned Judge committed an error in the exercise of jurisdiction in thinking, in any event, that the provisions of Act 30 of 1952, as amended were applicable to the facts of the case. Section 25 provides as follows :--

(3.) If Act XXX of 1952 as amended applied to the arbitration in the instant case at least for a part of the period of requisition, in view of the provisions of Section 8 (1) (g) thereof, nothing in the Arbitration Act, 1940 would apply to arbitration under challenge before us. The learned Judge held that the application before him was not maintainable as the Act XXX of 1952 applied to the requisition in question.