RAVINDER SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenge in the present writ petition has been raised to the order dtd. 18/12/2013 (Annexure P-13), passed by the Commissioner, Patiala Division, whereby, while exercising the powers of Arbitrator, appointed under Sec. 20-F(6) of the Railways Act, 1989 (for short, the '1989 Act'), a finding was recorded under issues No.2 to 4 that it would not be possible to pay compensation to the applicants, who are alleged to be vendees of the land purchased from the legal heirs of Sadhu Singh. On account of exclusion of the petitioners, the other two claimants, i.e., Municipal Council Rajpura and Gram Panchayat,Dhamoli, who were claiming their rights in question regarding their right on the land in question it was referred to the competent Civil Court where all the three claimants would get their rights adjudicated on the question of title.

(2.) The compensation granted vide the award of the Competent Authority/Land Acquisition Collector, Patiala dtd. 14/12/2011 (Annexure P-7) was affirmed, except that the 10% non-litigation allowance was held not admissible. The LAC was asked to deposit the entire compensation amount with the District Judge, Patiala and matter was referred regarding the title, to the same Court, for proper adjudication.

(3.) It is pertinent to notice that the said order was challenged by the Municipal Council, Rajpura, respondents No.7 and 8 under Sec. 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 and the order was upheld on 6/1/2016 (Annexure P-16), on the ground that there was no error in the award. The Council had also sought declaration that it was owner of Khasra No.22, Bir Rajpura, Patiala, within the revenue estate of Rajpura. Resultantly, it was held that the award did not suffer from any error and the Arbitrator had not misconducted himself. It is pertinent to notice that some of the petitioners were also the respondents themselves before the Addl.District Judge and have raised challenge to the said proceedings only by way of the present writ petition but did not challenge the same by way of filing any petition under Sec. 34.