BHAJAN LAL Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners in this writ petition under Arts.226 and 227 of the Constitution of India seek the issuance of a writ of mandamus directing respondent No. 3. Union of India to appoint an Arbitrator to assess the market value of their land in accordance with law. It has been filed in the following circumstances : The petitioners are right holders of village Saran, Tehsil Ballabgarh, District Faridabad, in the State of Haryana the petitioners' land was acquired by the Central (Government under Sub-Section (2) of S.16 of the Defence of India Act, 1962 ('the Act', for short) read with S.25 of the Requisitioning and Acquisition of Immovable Property Act 1952 (hereinafter referred to as the '1952 Act'). The petitioners were dispossessed in the year 1964 and were not paid any compensation in respect of their land. Though the land had been acquired under the provisions of 1952 Act yet its market value had not been assessed by appointing an Arbitrator in accordance with the provisions of S.8 at 1952 Act and R.9 of the Rules framed thereunder.

(2.) Another chunk of land measuring 1495 Kanalas, 3 Marlas of village Saran was acquired by respondent No. 3 vide notification dated October 17, 1967. An Arbitrator under the provision of 1952 Act was appointed. The petitioners also made applications before the Arbitrator for determination of compensation for their land. At that stage, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent. Union of India raised objections that the petitioners' claims have not been referred to the Arbitrator for determination. In fact, no Arbitrator had been appointed to determine the amount of compensation of the land acquired under the notification dated 14th November, 1967. Arbitrator had been appointed to determine the amount of compensation relating to the 1495 Kanals 3 Marlas of land acquired vide Gazette Notification issued on October 17, 1967. On coming to know the true position, the petitioners made representations to the various authorities but without success. The petitioners then filed the present writ petition.

(3.) The writ petition was resisted by the respondents. Separate written statements have been filed. Respondents Nos. 1 and 2 have filed one written statement and respondent No. 3 has filed his separate written statement. In the written statement of respondent No. 3. it has been, inter alia, averred that the land of the petitioners measuring 64 Kanals 16 Martas was requisitioned under S.29 of the Defence of India Act 1962 and was also acquired under S.36 of the said Act on 14th Nov ember, 1967. However, proceedings were not taken under S.25 of the 1952 Act. The provisions of the said Act ware not applicable to this case and as such no Arbitrator was appointed under the 1952 Act. The averment of the petitioners that they were the right holders has not been denied. It was pleaded that Arbitrator, if any, can only be appointed under the Defence of India Act, 1962 and not under the provisions of the 1952 Act. It is further urged that since the land was acquired under the Act, the procedure laid down thereunder and the Rules made thereunder had been followed. It is pleaded that procedure for appointment of the Arbitrator is laid down under S.37(2) of the Act read with R.10 of the Defence of India (Requisitioning and Acquisition of Immovable Property) Rules. 1962 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules'). These statutory provisions provide that a person aggrieved by the decision of the competent authority made under R.5 of the Rules may within thirty days of the receipt of the communication of such determination, (may) make an application in writing to the Competent Authority for referring the matter to an arbitrator stating therein the reasons for his being aggrieved by the amount of compensation so determined. The applications of the petitioners to the authorities other than the Competent Authority and also after the period of 30 days were of no avail. Respondents Nos. 1 and 2 in their written statements have made averments on the same lines.