Bhag Singh vs Union of India

J.L. Gupta, J.—557.86 acres of land in the revenue estates of villages Qila Nau, Kamiana and Faridkot was acquired by the Union of India. The petitioners in these 11 petitions viz., Civil Writ Petition Nos. 2434, 4284/85 and 53305331 of 1987, 1095910962 of 1988 and 11540 of 1988 are the owners of different pieces of land in one or the other village. Their basic grievance is that the claim for compensation in respect of trees, buildings, water courses, wells, tubewells, fencing, standing crops, etc., which were in existence on the land at the time of its requisition and acquisition is not being determined by the respondents. By these writ petitions, they, inter alia, pray for the issue of a mandamus against the respondents for appointment of an Arbitrator to settle the dispute.

The facts as stated in Civil Writ Petition No. 10959 of 1988 may be noticed. The three petitioners are residents of village Qila Nau. Their land measuring 72 Kanals 9 Marlas was requisitioned by the respondents on April 23, 1963 under the Requisitioning and Acquisition of Immoveable Property Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as ''the Act. Thereafter, vide notification dated June 23, 1972, the aforementioned land was acquired by the respondents. It is averred that at the time of acquisition certain assets like trees, well, residential rooms, cattle sheds, rooms for storage, etc., were in existence on the acquired land while award in respect of the land was given, no compensation was paid to the petitioner in respect of the aforementioned assets on the land. Certain other landowners filed Civil Writ Petition No. 2091 of 1983 in this Court. After the disposal of the writ petition, respondent No. 2 vide orders dated April 23, 1984 which were passed in pursuance to the orders of this Court awarded a sum of Rs. 915/ as compensation to the petitioners for one Beri, one Kikkar, one Sheesham and Neem tree. This amount also included the compensation for a well. The petitioners accepted this amount under protest and without agreement on the ground that the entire land of the petitioner was not taken into consideration while evaluating the assets and the number of trees for which compensation had beer granted, was much less than the number of tree which actually existed on the acquired land. The petitioners claim that they filed their objection vide their letter dated May 16, 1984, a copy of which hats been appended as Annexure P1.

Therefore, instead of determining the compensation in respect of the assets as claimed by the petitioners, the respondents vide notification dated October 7, 1986 appointed Shri J.C. Aggarwal Addl. District Judge, Faridkot as an Arbitrator for the purposes of making an award in respect of the compensation payable to the landowners. A copy of this letter has been appended as Annexure P2. The Arbitrator was directed to determine the compensation in relation to the items for which amount of Rs 915/ had already been paid. The petitioners aver that there were other assets on the land in respect of which no compensation has been determined or paid to them and that the dispute was not confined to the compensation in respect of the matters referred to the Arbitrator but also compensation in respect of various items regarding which no reference whatsoever, has been made till today. It is the claim of the petitioners that no authority has determined whether the assets mentioned in their application at Annexure P1 and whether the other amounts claimed therein were due to the petitioners or not. The petitioners pray that the application where they have specifically ugred that they may be paid compensation for the assets and other items should be decide in accordance with law. According to the petitioners, the learned Arbitrator is refusing to determine the compensation as the reference is confined to the item as enumerated in the notification at Annexure P2 The petitioners aver that they have a right to be given compensation for all the property acquired and the action of the respondents in not doing so was violative of the mandatory provisions of the Act as also the provisions of Article 300A of the Constitution of India. They claim that in their applications they have given details of the assets which are not being taken into consideration and therefore, the respondents should have made a reference not only regarding the items for which compensation of Rs. 915/ had been awarded but also in respect of the items regarding which no compensation had been paid. Having failed to persuade the authorities to do the needful, the petitioners have approached this Court through the present petition.

A written statement has been filed on behalf of the respondents. It has been, inter alia, averred that there were no other assets on the land except those for which compensation has already been determined. A reference has been made to assessment report dated April 17, 1984 (Annexure R1) which had been prepared by the Special Land Acquisition Collector. It is on the basis of this report that the respondents have averred that no assets other than those for which compensation has been paid exist at the site. In this situation, they claim that the reference was rightly confined to the items mentioned in the notification at Annexure P2. In this situation, the respondents claim that the writ petition has no merit and deserves to be dismissed.

I have heard Mr. Rajiv Bhalla, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. H.S. Giani, learned counsel for the respondents. The only point urged by Mr. Bhalla is that according to the claim made by the petitioners there were assets besides those for which a reference has been made to the Arbitrator. Details of the assets had been furnished by the petitioners in their respective applications. The respondents should have made a reference in respect of the entire claim made by the petitioners. The Arbitrator could have gone into the evidence led by the parties and determined the question regarding the existence of the assets. He could have then proceeded to award compensation in respect of the assets which were actually found to be in existence. The counsel claims that the respondents had acted illegally in not referring the entire dispute to the Arbitrator. Mr. Giani, on the other hand had contended that the Land Acquisition Collector, had gone into the question of the existence of the assets and reference has rightly been made in respect of the items which were actually found to be in existence.

In a nutshell, the dispute between the parties is with regard to the actual existence of the assets. By way of instance, the petitioners claim that the number of trees which actually existed on the land was more than the number which has been determined by the respondents. This dispute has to be settled by an impartial authority. The Act has entrusted this job to the Arbitrator. The respondents cannot be the judge of their own cause. They are an interested party and their word cannot be final. If there was no dispute regarding the actual assets on the land, the reference made by the respondents would be unassailable. However, a perusal of the record shows that the dispute was there not only with regard to the compensation assessed by the Land Acquisition Collector, but also with regard to the actual existence of the assets on the land. The petitioners claim that all their assets have not been taken into consideration. The respondents urge that there were no other assets. Surely, this dispute had to be resolved by the agency provided under the Act. In this situation, the action of the respondents in not making a reference with regard to this dispute cannot be sustained.

Accordingly, I accept this writ petition and direct the respondent to appoint an Arbitrator to determine the claim made by the petitioners. If on examination of the evidence, the Arbitrator finds that there existed more assets than those alleged to be existing by the respondents, compensation in respect thereof shall be determined by the Arbitrator. The petitioners shall also be entitled to their costs which are assessed at Rs. 2000/ per case.