RAJA RAM SINGH Vs. KISHORI SARAN SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree of an Additional Subordinate Judge of Patna, affirming the decision of the 3rd Additional Munsif, decreeing a suit instituted by the respondents & their ancestor, Gulabi Bhagat who died during the pendency of the .iuit, for a declaration that they had one-half interest in a cultur-able area of 9 kathas in survey plot No. 12 and for another declaration that they were entitled to one-half of the compensation money allowed in Land Acquisition Case No. 83 of 1944-45. A reading of the plaint and the written statement indicated that the land had been acquired in a proceeding under the Land Acquisition Act, .1894; but when counsel for one of the parties showed to us the judgment of the 1st Court in the land acquisition proceeding, it transpired that the acquisition had been made under the Defence of India Act, 1939. Section 19 of that Act required that, in case there was no agreement about compensation between the Government and the party whose property had been requisitioned and acquired, an arbitrator would be appointed to determine the same and appeal would lie to the High Court against the award of the arbitrator. Sometime after the end of the second World War, the said Defence of [ndia Act ceased to be in force and certain Acts were made in 1947. so that the action taken thereunder would not become invalid. Ultimately, however, those Acts were also superseded by the Requisitioning and Acquisition of Immoveable Property Act, 1952 (30 of 1952) but all actions taken under the repealed Acts were kept valid and alive by Section 24 of this Act The land which is the subject-mattet of the present suit had been included in a larger area which had been acquired under the Defence of India Act, 1939 Mr Radha Pd. Singh. District & Sessions Judge of Patna, was appointed by the Government the sole arbitrator to determine the amount of compensation payable to the owners of the lands under a notification which reads as follows:

(2.) Mr. Choudhurv, who appeared for the appellants, i.e.. Raja Ram and his minor sons, challenged the Judgment and decree of the court below on two grounds namely. (1) that a civil suit does not lie in respect of the compensation, and (2) that the suit is barred hy res iudiraia.

(3.) In support of his grounds, he drew sur attention to the provisions and the scheme of the Act of 1952. Section 2 contains the definitions. Sections 3 to 6 deal with the requisitioning of immovable property Section 7 contains the power to acquire requisitioned property. Section 8 lays down the principles and method of determining compensation where any property is requisitioned or acquired under this Act. Clause (b) of Sub-section (1) of this section provides that, where no agreement can be reached between the claimant and the Government about the amount of compensation, the Government shall appoint as arbitrator a person who is, or has been, or is qualified for appointment as a Judge of a High Court. Clauses (e), (f) and (g) of that subsection read as follows: