UNION OF INDIA Vs. KULDEEP RAJ AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) 36 Kanals and 10 Marlas of land comprised under Khasra Nos. 259 and 260 situate at Gurdan Pain, Dist. Rajouri was acquired in terms of Requisition and Acquisition Act by the Government by virtue of a Notification issued on 29-1-1986. There is a dispute with regard to the possession between the parties, and by virtue of SRO 287 dated 18th of Dec., 1992 the Government referred the dispute to the arbitration of District Judge, Rajouri in terms of Sec. 8 of the said Act. The District Judge gave an award on 30-9-1993 which was challenged before this Court in an appeal (being No. 186 of 1993) by Union of India. The respondents also filed cross objections. Both the matters are pending. In the meantime, an application came to be filed on 6-7-1995 by the present applicants seeking their impleadment as respondents in the appeal filed by Union of India. Their grievance is that they were the owners of the acquired land and at no stage they were called either by the Government or by the arbitrator, therefore, they should be heard in the appeal. Objections have been filed and it has been stated therein that the present application is not maintainable.

(2.) I have heard learned counsel for the parties. A scheme for acquisition and determination of compensation is given in J&K Requisition and Acquisition of Immovable Property Act, 1968. Sec. 3 thereof prescribes that when a property is intended to be requisitioned, the Competent authority shall call upon the owner or any other person who may be in possession of the property, by notice in writing to show cause why the property should not be requisitioned. If no cause is shown, the Competent authority may by order in writing requisition the property. After the requisition of the property, if there is a dispute with regard to the compensation the Government has he power to refer the matter to the arbitration of a person who is a District Judge or an Additional District Judge. Sub-clause (4) of Sec. 8 of the Act lays down that where there are several persons interested in the compensation, it shall be lawful for the Government; either on its own motion or on an application from any person interested to appoint the same or any other arbitrator to make another supplementary award in respect of the dispute. From a bare perusal of sub-section (4) of Sec. 8 of the Act, it appears that the Legislature has taken rule care of the interests of those persons who on any count are not called upon by the Government to show cause or who on any count are not party to the arbitration proceedings, but are interested in the compensation can approach the Government for appointment of same arbitrator or any other arbitrator to make an award or a supplementary award. Therefore, I think the remedy available to the applicants herein is by way of filing an application with the Government and if the Government is satisfied that the present applicants have an interest in the property, they can make a fresh reference for a supplementary award. In terms of Sec. 10 of the Act which gives right of appeal to the parties, any person aggrieved of an award can file an appeal within thirty days of the award. Perhaps , this remedy was also available to the applicants, but they have not chosen to come to this Court by way of an appeal. They have moved an application for become respondents in the appeal, which cannot be a substitute for an appeal. Therefore, this Court cannot entertain the application at this stage. However, the applicants are free to move the Government in terms of subsection (4) of Sec. 8 of the Act.

(3.) For the aforesaid reasons, the application is dismissed. Petition dismissed.