Jharkhand High Court
Shree Gopal Goenka And Anr. vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 13 March, 2002
Author: M.Y. Eqbal
Bench: M.Y. Eqbal
ORDER M.Y. Eqbal, J.
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 part of the petitioners in approaching the respondent authority for appointment of Arbitrator.
3. On the other hand. Mr. A.K, Jha, learned Counsel appearing for the Union of India submitted that the offer made by the respondents of rental compensation at Rs. 15,66,857.11 was accepted by the petitioners in 1992 and they never claimed appointment of Arbitrator under the Act rather they filed an application under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, which was not at all maintainable. Learned Counsel therefore submitted that the claim of the petitioners for appoint-
ment of Arbitrator under Section 8 of the said Act is belated one having been filed after 18 years and such claim is not maintainable. Learned Counsel put heavy reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Union of India & Ors. v. Munsha and Ors., (1995) Supp. (4) SCC 660.
4. 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.
5. Under Sub-rule (3) of Rule 9, the competent authority, viz. the Land Acquisition Officer is enjoyed, as soon as may be practicable, to communicate to each interested person an offer which is fair and reasonable of the amount of the compensation. When an offer is made to such a person, he shall within 15 days of the receipt of the offer, communicate in writing to the competent authority his acceptance or otherwise of the offer. If he accepts the offer, the competent authority should enter into an agreement with him on behalf of the Central Government in Form 'K'. If the person to whom an offer is made does not accept the offer or does not communicate within 15 days of the receipt of the offer, in writing to the competent authority his acceptance or otherwise of the offer, the competent authority should, as soon as may be, submit to the Central Government a report setting forth the full facts of the case, particularly as regards the nature and extent of the disagreement between him on the one hand and the interested person on the other.
6. Now, I shall analyse the facts of the instant case to find out whether the competent authority has completed the requirements of the Act and the rules made thereunder. Admittedly, land was acquired under the Land Acquisition and Requisition Act in the year 1987. The respondents offered to the petitioners sum of Rs. 15,66,857.11 as rental compensation. The contention of the petitioners is that they received compensation amount under protest, has not been controverted by the respondents. The respondents have annexed the copy of the application filed by the petitioners before the Land Acquisition Officer as Annexure-'E' to the counter-affidavit to show that they have filed application under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act for determination of compensation. This application shows and rather support the case of the petitioner that they received amount under protest and filed application, though under the wrong provisions of law, claiming higher compensation for the said land. The Land Acquisition Officer did not pass any order on the said application and it was only in 1995 the Land Acquisition Officer has made reference to the Sub- Judge-I Ranchi for determination of compensation. The said application sent to the Sub-Judge was registered as L.A case No. 53/95. The said reference remain pending before the Sub-Judge for about 5 years and it was only on 6.7.2000 the Sub-Judge-I, Ranchi by order dated 6.7.2000 returned the reference to the Land Acquisition Officer with a direction to take proper steps. A copy of the order passed by the Sub-Judge in L.A. Case No. 53/95 has been annexed as Annexure-5 to the writ application. From perusal of the order dated 6.7.2000, it appears that the Sub-Judge mentioned in the order that the G.P. has moved the application stating that the claim of the petitioner was referred by mistake to this Court, under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act and therefore it should be returned to the Land Acquisition Officer. There is no averment in the counter-affidavit that the competent authority namely, the Land Acquisition Officer, after the amount was received by the petitioners, ever called upon them to enter into an agreement in Form 'K' nor there is any averment in the counter-affidavit that the Land Acquisition Officer submitted to the Central Government a report and the connected papers of acceptance from the petitioners in writing.
7. From the facts of the instant case as discussed above, it is therefore clear that immediately after the offer was made in 1992 petitioners filed protest petition before the Land Acquisition Officer and claimed higher amount. When the order was passed by the Sub-Judge, Ranchi returning back the reference to the Land Acquisition Officer in 2000. the petitioner's immediately approached the respondents for appointment of Arbitrator. It is therefore, not the case where petitioners after accepting offer kept mum for about 14 years and did not take any steps for enhancement of the compensation amount and for the determination of reasonable compensation. In my opinion, therefore, the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Union of India & Ors. v. Munsha and Ors. (supra) does not apply in the facts of the present case. Besides the above, in similar facts this Court allowed various writ petitions last being C.W.J.C. No. 4419/2000 (R).
8. In the facts and circumstances of the case, this writ application is allowed and the respondents are directed to appoint Arbitrator in terms of Section 8 of the said Act for the purpose of determination of the compensation in respect of acquisition of land in question.