Punjab-Haryana High Court
Union Of India (Uoi) vs Bhajan Lal And Ors. on 27 January, 1999
Equivalent citations: (1999)122PLR730, 1999 A I H C 2947, (1999) 2 CURLJ(CCR) 300, (1999) 2 LANDLR 633, (1999) 122 PUN LR 730, (1999) 1 LACC 471, (1999) 2 RECCIVR 297, (1999) 2 ICC 583
Author: N.C. Khichi
Bench: N.C. Khichi
JUDGMENT Jawahar Lal Gupta, J.
1. Has the learned Single Judge erred in directing the Union of India to appoint an arbitrator to determine the compensate., due to the respondent-landowners? Should the Court interfere despite the fact that me Union of India has not paid any compensation to the land-owners for the last 30 years? This is the issue. A few facts may be noticed.
2. The Central Government requisitioned land measuring 64 kanals 16 marlas situate in village Sarah, Tehsil Ballabgarh, District Gurgaon. On November 14, 1967, the land was acquired under Section 36(2) of the Defence of India Act, 1962. Despite the lapse of almost 20 years, no compensation was assessed or paid. No arbitrator was appointed. Aggrieved by the inaction, the landowners approached this Court, through a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution praying that a writ in the nature of mandamus be issued directing the Union of India etc. to pay the compensation in accordance with law.
3. The claim made by the land-owners was resisted on the ground that it was barred by limitation. According to the present appellant, any person aggrieved by the decision of the competent authority could make an application in writing for reference of the matter to the arbitrator within 30 days of the receipt of the communication. Since the landowners had failed to make such an application within the prescribed time, they were not entitled to any relief as prayed for by them.
4. On examination of the rules, the learned Single Judge has held as under: -
"Rule 9 lays down in clear terms that any person aggrieved by the amount of compensation determined by the competent authority, shall within 30 days of the receipt of the communication of determination, make an application in writing to the competent authority for referring the matter to an Arbitrator stating therein the reasons for his being aggrieved by the amount of compensation so determined. Thus, the period of limitation starts running from the time the communication of the determination is received by the aggrieved person from the competent authority. The time does not start running till the receipt of such a communication. In the absence of cogent evidence that the petitioners had received such a communication from the competent authority it cannot be said that the petitioners had lost their right by lapse of time."
It has also been held that "since provisions of rule 8 had not been complied with, the provisions of Rule 9 providing the period of limitation, for filing application for the appointment of an Arbitrator are not' attracted and it cannot be contended that the application of the petitioners under Rule 9 for referring the matter to an Arbitrator would be time barred." With these findings, the writ petition was allowed.
5. Mr. Ashutosh Mohunta, counsel for the appellant has contended that on a perusal of the letter which is On record as Annexure P.3, it is apparent that the provisions of Rule 8 had been complied with. The counsel submits that in view of this communication, the finding recorded by the learned Single Judge cannot be sustained.
6. The contention is wholly misconceived. The representation, Annexure P.3 relates to the payment of compensation for the "requisition of land for Radar Station by Defence Ministry of India ..." A perusal of this letter does not show that any order as contemplated under Rule 8 had been passed or ever communicated to the landowners. Thus the plea raised on behalf of the appellant is rejected.
7. It deserves mention that the appellant has deprived the respondents of their land. Despite the lapse of more than 30 years now, no compensation has been paid to them. The plea that the claim is barred by time, could be sustained only if it was shown that an order regarding assessment and payment of compensation as contemplated under Rule 8 had been passed and communicated. Despite being repeatedly asked, counsel for the appellant has not been able to refer to anything on the record to indicate that the compensation had been assessed and communicated to the respondent-land-owners. In the absence of the proof regarding assessment and communication as contemplated under Rule 8, the question of the expiry of limitation under rule 9 cannot arise. This is precisely the view taken by the learned Single Judge. We find no ground to take a different view.
8. Mr. Mohunta has referred to the decision of their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Union of India and Ors. v. Munsha and Ors., 1996 Land Acquisition Compensation Cases 87. The issue which arose for consideration in this case was as to whether or not the Union of India was liable to pay interest for the delay in the appointment of arbitrator. Such an issue does not arise at present in this case. Consequently, counsel for the appellant can derive no advantage from this decision.
9. No other point has been raised.
10. In view of the above, we find no merit in this appeal. It is consequently, dismissed. The respondents shall be entitled to their costs which are assessed at Rs. 3,000/-.