COL. HIS HIGHNESS RAJA SIR HARINDER SINGH BAHA DUR, RULER OF THE FORMER FARIDKOT STATE, FARIDKOT Vs. THE UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE five petitions (Nos. 227 and 3493 to 3496 of 1968) under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India raise questions as to the correct interpretation and true scope of Sub -section (4) of Section 6 of the Manoeuvres, Field Firing and Artillery Practice Act (5 of 1938) (hereinafter called the Act), and of Rule 16 of the Punjab Manoeuvres, Field Firing and Artillery Practice Rules, 1957, framed under Section 13 of the Act. Except for one extra ground which has been pressed in Civil Writ 227 of 1968, both the other grounds are common to all these five cases. All these five petitions have been filed by Colonel His Highness Raja Sir Harinder Singh. Except tor the difference in the description and location of the property, the difference in the particulars of the Army Battalions, and the differences in the relevant dates, there is no other material distinction between any of these cases Learned Counsel for both parties were, therefore, agreed that my decision in this case (Civil Writ 227 of 1968) would seal the fate of the other four cases also so far as the first two points are concerned, though the third point, as already stated, arises in this case alone and does not arise in the other cases. I, therefore, propose to dispose of all these five writ petitions by this common judgment wherein the facts of only the first case are stated

(2.) ON February 9, 1967, during the course of field firing by a particular battalion of the Indian Army, a forest fire was caused by the explosion of army shells in that para of Bir Ghugiana, tahsil Faridkot, district Bhatinda, which belongs to the Petitioner. The Petitioner's land on which the manoeuvres were being conducted was within the area which had been duly specified by the State Government under Section 2 of the Act. On February 10, 1967, the Petitioner submitted to the Revenue Officer of the Field Firing Bir Ghugiana, his claim under Section 6 of the Act for the loss caused to him by the said fire Annexure 'A' to the writ petition is a copy of the claim. Shri Joginder Singh Sandhu Respondent No. 8 who was the Circle Revenue Officer incharge of the Field Firing, Bir Ghugiana, investigated the claim single -handed and gave his award [copy Annexure 'B'), dated April 18. 1937, in favour of the Petitioner for a sum of Rs. 11,217/ -. Not satisfied with the award, the Petitioner gave notice, dated April 28, 1967, of his intention to appeal against the same under Sub -section (3) of Section 6 of the Act within the prescribed time. Shri R.C. Kapila, Collector, Bhatinda district, who is Respondent No. 4 in this case, constituted a commission under Sub -section (4) of Section 6 of the Act consisting of (i) himself as the Chairman, (ii) Lieut. M.L. Purohit, Respondent No. 5, a person nominated by the Officer Commanding the forces engaged in the manoeuvres, i.e., nominated by Respondent No. 2, and (iii) and (iv) Shri Sukhdev Singh Dhillon, Chairman; Zila Parishad, Bhatinda, and Shri Mukhtiar Singh, Respondents Nos. 6 and 7 respectively, as the two persons nominated by the Zila Parishad, Bhatinda, for deciding the Petitioner's appeal. Before the final disposal of the appeal, an objection was taken on * behalf of the Petitioner to the inclusion of Shri Mukhtiar Singh in the commission as a result of which Respondent No. 7 (Mukhtiar Singh) wrote to Respondent No. 4 (Collector/Deputy Commissioner) a letter (copy Annexure 'E' to the petition) that he wanted to withdraw his name from the commission in view of the objection to his nomination taken by the Advocate for the Petitioner (though he described the objection as being baseless), as he stood for impartiality and did not want any person to feel aggrieved without reason. Thereafter Respondent No. 7 did not take part in the proceedings of the commission which inspected the spot and finally dismissed the appeal by its order dated August 17, 1967 (Annexure 'F'). The appellate order was signed by the Collector (Respondent No. 4), the Army representative (Respondent No, 5) and by the Chairman of the Zila Parishad (Respondent No. 6), but was not signed by Mukhtiar Singh Respondent No. 7. On January 2. 1968, this writ petition was filed for having quashed the appellate order of the commission, date August 17, 1967, and for issuing a direction for rehearing and fresh disposal of the Petitioner's appeal preferred under Sub -section (3) of Section 6 of the Act "by a lawfully constituted commission in a lawful manner".

(3.) ALL points other than the following three (which have been mentioned in these writ petitions) have been expressly given up by Mr. K.C. Puri, the learned Counsel for the Petitioner: -