GIAN CHAND Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Union of India has filed this Misc. application for recalling the order passed by the Lok Adalat and for determination of the matter on merits by the Court.

(2.) I have gone through the order passed by the Lok Adalat on May 29,2000, by virtue of which order, the respondents have been directed to make reference to the dispute of determination of market value of the land acquired to "the arbitration within a period of one month under Section 18(b) of the Requisitioning and Acquisition of Immoveable Property Act, 1952, (for short the 'Act'). While passing the order, the Lok Adalat had specifically observed that in case the respondents object to the proposed order they "could move separate applications for sending the case back to the Registry of the High Court. Since the respondents-applicants seek to contest the matter on merits, the order of the I.ok Adalat cannot be imposed upon the respondents in the present case. Therefore, the order of Lok Adalat is recalled and the case is taken up for final hearing on merits today itself.

(3.) Gian Chand and Ors., have filed this petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India for a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to appoint an Arbitrator under Section 8(i)(b) of the Requisitioning and Acquisition of Im-moveable Property Act, 1952, to assess the amount of compensation payable to the petitioneRs. It is averred in the petition that the land belonging to the petitioners was requisitioned under the provisions of the Act, in the year 1965. The land was acquired by respondent No. 2 - Special Land Acquisition Collector, Pathankot, District Gurdaspur, acting as Competent Authority in Form 'J' dated March 9, 1970 and published in Government gazette dated March 17, 1970, under Section 17(1) of the Act. In April, 1971, a part payment in account was made to the petitioner. As the compensation could not be fixed by an agreement between the parties as per the provisions of the Act, the petitioner applied for appointment of the Arbitrator but none was appointed. It is specifically averred in the petition that no agreement was entered into between the petitioner and the competent authority in form 'K' as prescribed in Rule 9 of the Requisitioning and Acquisition of lmmoveable Property Rules, 1953. (for short 'the Rules'). The petitioner approached respondent No. 2 repeatedly but no Arbitrator had been appointed till date. The petition has been contested by respondent No. 1 by filing a written statement, by taking up objection that the petitioners had accepted the compensation determined by Special Land Acquisition Collector, the Competent Authority, without any protest and have approached the High Court after a period 17 years and the petition deserves to be dismissed being barred by time. The acquisition notification in Form 'J' was issued in this case on March 13, 1970. The petitioners did not apply for the appointment of the Arbitrator within 15 days or thereafter under the provisions of Rule 9(5) of the Rules. The Arbitrator had been appointed in the cases where the applicants had applied for appointment of the Arbitrator within stipulated period of 15 days as provided under Rule 9(5) of the rules, as per the Punjab Government notification published on August 19, 1977. It is averred in the written statement that fair, just and adequate compensation had been received by the petitioners and Mr. Chuni Lal without any protest. The averment that no agreement in Form 'K' had been executed, has not been specifically denied. No such agreement in Form 'K' has been placed on record.