DEVI DAYAL Vs. STATE OF J&K

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this application a preliminary objection has been raised by the respondents that the petition u/s 20 of the J & K Arbitration Act is not maintainable in view of the specific provisions of section 32 -(A) of the Public Security Act. The following preliminary issue has therefore been raised : - "Is the petition not maintainable because of the Specific provisions of section 32 (a) of the Public Security Act -

(2.) ARGUMENTS were addressed by the counsel for the parties. Before dwelling upon the legal aspects of the preliminary objection raised it would be appropriate to give a resume of the facts involved in the petition. The petitioner has averred that the Army took possession of his landed property without his consent and knowledge. This act of the Army was, however, regularised by Cabinet Order No. 222 -C of 1955 dated llth of March, 1955 passed u/s 32 -(A) of the Public Security Act. The petitioner because of his pre -occupation could not pursue the matter. It, however, came to his notice that the Army had damaged his property and had caused loss to the petitioner to the extent of Rs. 12.923.00. The Army authorities were called upon by the Dy. Commissioner Jammu to pay compensation to the Petitioner but the respondent No. 2 unduly delayed the matter on one pretext or the other forcing the petitioner to file a regular suit in the court of the District Judge Jammu for the recovery of the amount of compensation. The suit was decreed by the District Judge. But on appeal it was dismissed by the High Court on the ground that the suit was barred by limitation. The High Court, however, observed that the petitioner could have recourse to the other provisions of the Public Security Act if permissible. As the property was requisitioned under the Public Security Act therefore under sub -clause (31 of section 32 -A of the Public Security Act as it then stood respondent No. 1 was under a legal obligation to pay compensation in respect of the property requisitioned in accordance with the provisions of that section. No compensation was, however, fixed in accordance with law but the Government arbitrarily fixed the compensation of the property at a very nominal rate. The petitioner has further averred that the amount of compensation should have been fixed by referring the matter to an arbitrator of the status of District Judge. As no compensation was fixed in accordance with law, therefore this application under section 20 of the Arbitration Act for referring the dispute of assessment of compensation to an arbitrator to be appointed under section 32 -A 3(b) of the Public Security Act.

(3.) APPEARING for the State Shri Anil Dev Singh has in support of the preliminary objection invited my attention to sub -clause (3) (a) and (3) (b) of section 32 -A of the Public Security Act. He has argued that under the Act if there is a dispute with regard to the amount of compensation of the land requisitioned the same could be assessed by an arbitrator appointed by the Government in this behalf. This is in accordance with clause 3(b). Under sub -clause (3) (d) an appeal is to lie to the High Court against an award of the arbitrator. It is submitted that this section lays down a complete procedure for assessment of compensation in respect of the property requisitioned under the Public Security Act. These provisions are inconsistent with the Arbitration Act in so far as the procedure provided and right of appeal conferred by that Act are concerned ; section 20 of the Arbitration Act is, therefore, inapplicable to a case of compensation arising under the Public Security Act. In support of his contention he has relied upon A.I.R. 1968 Patna 352 and 1955 Hyderabad 238.