MEHAR SINGH Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The prayer in the petition is for a direction to be issued to respondents No. 1 and 2 to pay compensation to the petitioner of his 1/6th share of the land at the same rate as has been paid to respondents No. 3 to 7 for their 5/6th share of the land, subject matter of acquisition by respondent No. 1 and 2. Before the contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioner are noticed, brief facts giving rise to this petition first need to be enumerated.

(2.) The petitioner jointly held with respondents No. 3 to 7 the land measuring 30 bighas comprised in Khasra No. 2354/1 situated in the revenue estate of Patti Maina, Bhatinda and the same was acquired for defence purposes under section 29 of the Defence of India Act, 1971. Later a notification under section 8 of the Requisition and Acquisition of Immovable Property Act, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as 'The Act of 1952' was issued on 20.1.1975 and the land reference of which has been given above, was deemed to have been acquired by the said notification. The petitioner was sharer with his brothers, respondents No. 3 to 7 and all the brothers inter-se held 1/6th share each. The land measuring 30 bighas belonging to the petitioner and respondents No. 3 to 7 was a part of the total land acquired vide notification aforesaid which comes to about 1230 acres at Patti Maina, Bhatinda. Special Land Acquisition Collector Competent Authority under the Defence of India Act, 1971 determined the market rate of the land, subject matter of the acquisition, vide his award dated 6th March, 1975 and various rates were fixed by him. Later on an application given by respondents No. 3 to 7, the matter was referred to the arbitrator for determination of compensation regarding 25 bighas of land which clearly means that inasmuch as the application for appointment of an Arbitrator was made by respondents No. 3 to the 7, the subject matter of the Arbitration was to be only 25 bighas of land belonging to respondents No. 3 to The Arbitrator is stated to have given the award on 7th June, 1985. The copy of the award aforesaid has been placed on records of this case as Annexure P I and the same shows that besides solatium and interest a claimant is entitled to under the provisions of Land Acquisition Act, the respondents No 3 to 7 were also held entitled to various rates i.e. Rs. 16.80 per sq. yard for land situated on either side of National Highway leading, from Bhatinda to Barnala upto the depth of 500 metres, Rs. 16.00 per sq. yard for land upto a depth of 500 metres from Municipal Limits/fencing of the antonment or from boundary of 3rd phase of Urban Estate of Bhatinda town and Rs. 8.50 per sq. yard for rest of the acquired land. When the brothers of the petitioner i.e. respondents No. 3 to 7 moved the Arbitrator for payment and succeeded in getting compensation qua their shares, as per award, Annexure P 1, the petitioner too filed an application praying therein that since the rate of compensation was determined in respect of the total area of 30 bighas jointly owned by the petitioner and respondents No. 3 to 7 he too was entitled to the same rate. The Arbitrator declined the relief to the petitioner on the ground that he was not a party to the reference and was, therefore, not entitled to the same rate of the compensation, particularly when the reference for arbitration was relating to only 25 bighas out of 30 bighas of land. It may be mentioned here that under the provisions of the Act of 1952, the Arbitrator is District Judge of the district. The award, Annexure P. 1, has been passed by Additional District Judge, Bhatinda and the application of the petitioner for giving him the same compensation as was given to his brothers also came up for disposal before the same Additional District Judge who declined it vide order Annexure P.2. It is that order of the Arbitrator which has been challenged in this case and the prayer has been made for payment of compensation to the extent and in the manner the same was made to co-sharers and brothers of the petitioner who are respondents No. 3 to 7 in the present petition.

(3.) No written statement has been filed by the contesting respondents No. 1 and 2 and the written statement filed by respondents No. 3 to 7 is of no meaning and consequence.