GIAN SINGH Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This order will dispose of civil writ petition Nos. 3456, 3457, 3458, 3459, 3460, 3461, 3462 and 3463 of 1989 as common questions of law and fact have been raised in all these writ petitions.

(2.) As the facts are pari materia in all the writ petitions, it would be sufficient that the facts are taken from civil writ No. 3456 of 1989. The land of the petitioners was requisitioned under the provisions of the Defence of India Act, 1962 and its possessions was taken by the respondents on 27.7.1966. Ultimately, the land was acquired and a notice in form 'J' dated 14.1.1971 was published in the Punjab Government Gazette dated 26.2.1971 under Section 7 of the Requisitioning and Acquisition of Immoveable Property Act, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The competent authority offered a nominal compensation which was not accepted by the petitioners and a request was made for the appointment of an Arbitrator to determine the just and fair compensation. No agreement has been entered into between the owners-landlords and the competent authority in form 'K' as prescribed in Rule 9 of the Requisitioning and Acquisition of Immoveable Property Rules, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules'). According to the petitioners, the respondents have been appointing Arbitrators in case of claimants whose land was also acquired under the same Notification as that of the petitioners from time to time. Even in July, 1977 with respect to some of the claimants, an Arbitrator was appointed who gave an award against which F.A.O. No. 410 of 1980 is still pending. The petitioners through this writ petition have sought a mandamus directing the respondents to proceed in accordance with Section 8 of the Act and appoint an Arbitrator in order to assess the just and fair compensation payable to them.

(3.) The respondents raised the defence that the petitioners never applied for the appointment of an Arbitrator and as such no Arbitrator can be appointed. Secondly, they have received the payment after executing form 'K' as full and final settlement of their claim which debars them from seeking the appointment of an Arbitrator. It was claimed that the petition is belated and liable to be dismissed on the ground of laches inasmuch as the petitioners could have approached this court in the year 1977 when in case of some persons an Arbitrator was appointed.