SHREE GOPAL GOENKA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this writ application the petitioners seek appropriate direction upon the respondents to appoint an Arbitrator in terms of Section 8 of the Requisition and Acquisition of Immovable Properly Act, 1952 with respect to the land of the petitioners and to offer adequate compensation of the said land. The land in question measuring 4.55 acres situates in village Morabadi in the district of Ranchi. By notification dated 25.2.1987 the land was acquired under the Requisition and Acquisition of Immovable Property Act, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). It is contended by the petitioner that no agreement was arrived with regard to quantum of compensation for such acquisition of property and no offer was made by the respondents in Form K in terms of sub -rule (3) of Rule 9 of the Rules. However, the Land Acquisition Collector who was entrusted to value such land to higher amount but the petitioner was paid Rs. 15,66,857=11 in 1992. The Land Acquisition Collector said to have referred the matter to the Special Sub -Judge -I, Ranchi for adjudication in the matter of compensation to be payable to the petitioner which was registered as L.A. Case No. 53/95. The Sub - Judge -I, Ranchi by Order dated 6.7.2000 returned the said matter to the District Land Acquisition Collector, Ranchi holding that reference was not maintainable and directed the Land Acquisition Officer to take steps in accordance with law. Petitioners further case is that they requested the concerned respondent for offering adequate compensation in Form K and/or for appointment of arbitrator in terms of Section 8 of the Act but the respondents are not taking any decision for appointment of arbitrator. Respondent Union of India and defence Estate Officer filed their counter -affidavit stating inter alia that the requisition proceeding was first initiated by the Government of India, Ministry of Defence in the year 1952 for acquisition of the land. The Govt. of India accorded the necessary sanction in 1986 for acquisition of the land and notification was published in the Official Gazettee. The compensation of the petitioners land measuring 4.55 acres was determined at Rs. 15,66,857=11 and the same was paid to the petitioner in 1992. Respondents case therefore is that the claim of the petitioner for appointment of Arbitrator at this belated stage i.e. after 14 years is not justified.

(2.) MR . S.N. Lal, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that pursuant to notification for acquisition of land in 1987 petitioners were offered rental compensation in 1992 and the same was accepted by the petitioners under protest and no agreement in Form K was signed. Learned Counsel further submitted that petitioner filed protest petition before the Land Acquisition Officer, who under mistaken of law referred it to the Land Acquisition Judge Under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. The Special Sub -Judge -I, Ranchi in the year 2000 by order dated 6.7.2000 returned the reference to the Land Acquisition Officer with a direction to take proper steps. Learned Counsel therefore, submitted that there is no laches or negligence on the p. of the petitioners in approaching the respondent authority for appointment of Arbitrator.

(3.) THE procedure for determination of compensation and adjudication of claim under the two acts namely, the Land Acquisition Act and the Requisition and Acquisition Act are quite different. Under Section 8(1) of the Act which is under consideration provides that where any property is requisitioned or acquired under the Act the interested person shall be paid compensation which shall be determined in the manner and according to the principles set out thereunder.