Patna High Court
Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. vs Sanicharwa Lakra And Ors. on 19 July, 1999
Equivalent citations: 2000(1)BLJR587, 2000 A I H C 2322, (2000) 1 LACC 576 2000 BLJR 1 587, 2000 BLJR 1 587
Author: R.A. Sharma
Bench: R.A. Sharma, A.K. Prasad
JUDGMENT R.A. Sharma, J.
1. Whether appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent, from the decision of the learned Single Judge rendered in an appeal filed under Section 11 of the Requisitioning & Acquisition of Immovable Property Act, 1952, (hereinafter referred to as the Act) against an award of an arbitrator is maintainable, is the question which is required to be decided at the threshold in these appeals
2. In L.P.A. Nos. 330 & 331 of 1998 (R), which have been filed against the decision of the learned Single Judge in appeals filed under Section 11 of the Act against the award, the Registry has raised the preliminary objection about their maintainability under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent. We, therefore, heard the learned Counsel for the parties on the preliminary objection, and reserved the judgment.
3. During the course of argument on the preliminary question, the learned Counsel for the appellants have stated that there are two other L.P.A. Nos. 157/98 (R) and 311/98 (R) which have also been filed against the judgment of the learned Single Judge deciding the appeal filed under Section 11 of the Act against the award of the Arbitrator which have already been admitted. We, therefore, summoned the records of those two appeals also, from perusal of which it appeared that no objection regarding maintainability of those appeals was raised by the Registry, on account of which they were admitted without deciding the question of their maintainability. We, therefore, directed that L.P.A. Nos. 330/98 (R) and 331 /98 (R) be listed again along with L.P.A. Nos. 157/98 (R) and 311 / 98 (R) for hearing of the preliminary objection. Regarding maintainability. All these four cases were thereafter listed before us for hearing on the preliminary objection about their maintainability.
4. We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties.
5. In L.P.A. Nos. 330/98 (R) and 3.31/9.8 (R), the land was requisitioned in 1942 under the provisions of Defence of India Act by the Central Government for construction of Army Camp, The land so requisitioned was subsequently acquired under the Act. The Deputy Commissioner fixed the compensation but the land owners not being satisfied within, requested for appointment of an Arbitrator under the Act for determination of the compensation. As the authority concerned did not appoint the Arbitrator, they filed a writ petition in this Court being CWJC No. 1543/92 (R) which was disposed of directing the Central Government or its delegates to appoint an Arbitrator under Section 8( l)(b) of the Act. Pursuant to the direction of this Court, the Arbitrator was appointed who gave an award determining the compensation for the land acquired. The owners of the land filed appeals M.A. Nos. 38/94 (R) and 39/94 (R) under Section 11 of the Act before this Court challenging the awards of the Arbitrator. The appeals were decided by the learned Single Judge, vide judgment dated 9-3-1998 Being aggrieved thereby, the Union of India has two L.P.A. Nos, 330 & 331/98 (R).
6. In L.P.A. Nos. 157/98 (R) and 311 /98 (R) also, the land was requisitioned under the Defence of India Act and Rules framed thereunder in or about 1962. Initially, compensation was fixed by the Deputy Commissioner with which land owners were not satisfied and at their instance Arbitrator under Section 8 of the Act was appointed who gave an award determining the compensation. Both the parties challenged the award by filing appeals under Section 11 of the Act. The learned Single Judge had decided these two appeals against which two appeals have been filed by both the parties under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent.
7. Section 8 of the Act has laid down the principles and methods of determining the compensation. It provides that where any property is requisitioned or acquired under this Act, there shall be paid compensation amount of which shall be determined in the manner and in accordance with the principles hereinafter set out." Clause (b) of Sub-section (1) of Section 8 provides for appointment of an Arbitrator. Clause (a) of the said sub-section, which has laid down that the Arbitrator so appointed "shall make an award determining the amount of compensation", is as follows:
8(l)(c) The arbitrator shall, after hearing the dispute, make an award determining the amount of compensation which appears to him to be just and specifying the person or persons to whom such compensation shall be paid; and in making the award, he shall have regard to the circumstances or each case and the provisions of subsections (2) and (3) so far as they are application:
Against the award of the Arbitrator, Section 11 contains provision for appeal before a High Court, Section 11 is as follows:
11. Appeals from awards in respect of compensation.-Any person aggrieved by an award of the arbitrator made under Section 8 may, within thirty clays from the date of such award, prefer an appeal to the High Court within whose jurisdiction the requisitioned or acquired property is situated.
Provided that the High Court may entertain the appeal after the expiry of the said period of thirty days, if it is satisfied that the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from filing the appeal in time.
8. Clause 10 of the Letters Patent provides for an appeal from the judgment of a Single Judge other than the judgment rendered in Civil Revision, Second Appeal and Criminal Case. The question, is whether the decision of the learned Single Judge disposing of the appeal filed under Section 11 of the Act against an award of an Arbitrator is 'judgment' within the meaning of Clause 10 of the Letters Patent. If it is a judgment, appeal will undoubtedly lie. But if it is not a judgment, no appeal is maintainable.
9. In Hanskumar Kishanchand v. Union of India , the relevant extract of which is reproduced below, the apex Court held that decision of the High Court rendered in an appeal filed against an award of the Arbitrator is not judgment, decree or order either under the Code of Civil Procedure or Letter Patent:
...where the dispute is referred to the Court for determination by way of arbitration as in (1912) 39 Ind App 197 (PC), or where it comes by way of appeal against what is statedly an award as in Special Officer, Salsette Building Sites v. Dossabhai Bezonji (1913) ILR 37 Bom. 506 : ILR 41 Mad 943 : AIR 1919 Mad 626)(FB) and 58 Ind App 259 - (AIR 1931 PC 149) then the decision is not a judgment, decree or order under either the Code of Civil Procedure or the Letters Patent.
10. In Collector, Varanasi v. Gauri Shankar Misra and Ors. , the above ratio laid down by the apex Court in Hanskumar Kishanchond's case was approved by a Bench of five Hon'ble Judges holding as under:
...As seen earlier this Court ruled in that the decision rendered by the High Court under Section 19(1)(f) is not a decree, judgment, or final order. Hence, the provisions of Article 133, are not attracted to the present case....
The apex Court further held that although the decision of the High Court is not judgment, decree or final order but it is 'determination' which can be challenged under Article 136 of the Constitution.
11. Following the law laid down by the apex Court in the aforesaid cases, a Division Bench of the Delhi High Court in M/s Banwari Lal & Sons (Pvt.) Ltd. v. Union of India and Anr. AIR 1981 Del 366 has held that from the decision of the Single Judge rendered in an appeal filed against an award of the Arbitrator under Section 11 of the Act, Letters Patent Appeal is not maintainable because the decision of the Single Judge is not judgment. The learned Counsel for the parties have stated that there is 110 other decision on the point in issue.
12. From perusal of Section 8, it is apparent that the Arbitrator has to determine the compensation by an award and against such an award, appeal is preferred under Section 11 of the Act. As held by the apex Court in the aforesaid two cases, the decision of the learned Single Judge deciding the appeal filed under Section 11 of the Act is not a 'judgment' and it being not a 'judgment', the appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent is not maintainable.
13. For the reasons given above, the preliminary objection is upheld. These appeals are dismissed as not maintainable.