MANAS SETT Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE two appeals, one by the awardees/claimants and another by the competent authority, have been filed under Section 11 of the Requisitioning and Acquisition of Immovable Properties Act, 1952 against the award dated 01.01.1994 passed by the learned Arbitrator in Arbitration Case No. 1 of 1973/1 of 1993 awarding recurring compensation including interest for the requisition of land and building under the provisions of the aforesaid Act.

(2.) THE predecessor -in -interest of the appellants of Misc. Appeal No. 27 of 1994 (R) held and possessed landed properties, comprised within plot No. 1528 of Khata No. 170 measuring 7.50 acres with a house and building standing over a portion of the aforesaid land known as 'Hemkunj' lying in Ward No. 7 -B within Ranchi Municipality in Buti Road, Ranchi. It appears that the aforesaid property was requisitioned under the provisions of the Defence of India Act, 1962 by. Notification dated 13.12.1962 for defence purposes and possession of the property was taken by the defence authority in January, 1965. The Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi, who was the competent authority, fixed a monthly recurring compensation for the building at Rs. 450/ - and an annual compensation for land at Rs. 1297.50 p. The owners of the properties objected to the aforesaid amount fixed by the Dy. Commissioner and consequently, the Additional Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi, was appointed as Arbitrator under the provisions of the Requisition and Acquisition of Immovable Properties Act, 1952 (hereinafter to be referred to as the said Act). It appears that the dispute could not be decided by the Arbitrator so appointed because of his transfer and the matter remained pending for a long time. Ultimately, the claimant appellants moved this Court by filing C.W.J. No. 2226 of 1989 (R) and this Court finally by an order dated 12.9.1991 directed the respondents to appoint Arbitrator. Since the order was not complied with within time, the appellants filed a contempt petition being M.J.C. No. 203 of 1992 (R). Ultimately, a notification was issued in the year 1992 appointing a retired Judge of this Court as an arbitrator who, after hearing the parties, passed the final award, which is impugned in these two Misc. appeals.

(3.) THE learned Arbitrator formulated the following points for consideration: