RAVI KANTA Vs. THE PUNJAB STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE question relating to the interpretation of the provision of Section 8 of the Punjab Requisitioning and Acquisition of Immovable Property Act (Punjab Act No. XI of 1953) arises for determination in this case which has been referred to the Division Bench.

(2.) THE facts of this case have been given at length in the order of reference made by Gurdev Singh, J., on August 22, 1961. Briefly those facts are that the District Magistrate, Hissar, requisitioned in 1952 house No. B. XVII -IS -23, situate near Police Lines, Hissar, along with the servants quarters and the adjacent agricultural land in accordance With the provisions of East Punjab Requisitioning of Immovable Property (Temporary Powers) Act No. 48 of 1948. The aforesaid property belonged to Uggar Sen deceased. As there was a dispute between the parties regarding the amount of compensation payable for the requisitioned property, the Government of the Punjab by an order, dated December 15, 1952, referred the same to the arbitration of the Senior Subordinate Judge, Hissar, under Section 5 of Act No. 48 of 1948. In the meanwhile the Punjab Requisitioning and Acquisition of Immovable Property Act No. XI of 1953, hereinafter referred to as the Act, came into force on 15th of April, 1953. By Section 25 of this later Act the earlier Act 48 of 1948 was repealed. On October 10, 1953, Uggar Sen put in a petition under the new Act claiming Rs. 250 per mensem as fair compensation for the requisitioned property. Besides that, an amount of Rs. 80,000 was claimed on account of the pecuniary loss suffered by Uggar Sen due to requisitioning of the property. The Punjab State resisted the claim and contended that the owner of the property was not entitled to anything beyond the fair rent of the premises, Which did not exceed Rs. 50 per mensem. The Arbitrator framed the following issue - -

(3.) WHEN the appeals came up for hearing before Gurdev Singh, J., the learned Counsel appearing for the State argued that in view of the provisions of clause (a) of sub -section (2) of Section 8 of the Act, in addition to the amount which the claimant might be found entitled under clause (b) of the sub -section, the arbitrator could not award him anything beyond the fair rent as determined under the provisions of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949, as the recurring payment for the period of requisition. Reliance on behalf of the Punjab State was placed upon the observations of Dulat, J., in Shrimati Attar Kaur v. The State (F.A.O. No. 90 of 1956), which were to the effect that compensation to be paid under Section 8 of the Act could not exceed the lawful rent payable within the definition of the Rent Restriction Act. As Gurdev Singh, J., doubted the correctness of the above view taken by Dulat, J., he expressed the opinion that the case be referred to a larger Bench. It is in these circumstances that the case has been referred to the Division Bench.