Nihal Singh and others vs Union of India and another

D.V. Sehgal, J.—The petitioners were cosharers in the land measuring 160 Bighas 17 Biswas situated in the revenue estate of Bhatinda which alongwith other land, in all 1230.80 acres of land was acquired for defence purposes by the Union of India, respondent No. 1, vide notification dated 20.1.1975 issued under section 8 of the Requisitioning and Acquisition of Immovable Property Act, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The market value of the land was assessed by the Special Land Acquisition Collector, respondent No. 2 vide his award dated 6.3.1975. At the time of acquisition of land, the petitioners No. 1 and 5 were owners of land measuring 16 Bighas 4 Biswas while petitioner No. 6 owned 10 Bighas 4 Biswas of land. Sarvshri Angrez Singh and Pritam Singh sons of Kirpal Singh were their cosharers in the joint Khata.

Being not satisfied with the award, the petitioners submitted applications dated 27.8.1975, Annexures P.1 and P.2 for making reference to the Arbitrator for determination of compensation under section 8(1)(b) of the Act. Their co sharers abovenamed, similarly made applications for reference to the Arbitrator. Through the present Writ Petition, the petitioners have brought to the Court their grievance that while in the case of their cosharers, a reference was made to the Arbitrator by the respondents on 21.9.84, 22.10.84 and 9.11.84 and ultimately, in their case, the Additional District Judge, Bhatinda has made his award dated 19.11.1985, Annexure P.3 enhancing the amount of compensation with further direction to pay them solatium and interest in accordance with the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 as amended by Act No. 68 of 1984, in the case of the petitioners no reference has been made by the respondents to the Arbitrator. They have, thus, prayed inter alia for issuance of a direction to the respondents to submit reference of the dispute with regard to compensation payable to them as raised through their applications Annexures P.1 and P.2 to the learned District Judge, Bhatinda.

The petition has been opposed by the respondents and written statement on their behalf has been filed by the Defence Estate Officer, Patiala Circle, Patiala, who has denied the receipt of the applications Annexures P.1 and P.2 from the petitioners, but has further contended that so as to verify the correctness of their assertions that they filed such applications for arbitration, they should be directed to produce the office copies of these applications. It was admitted that reference to the Arbitrator was made on the applications of the cosharers of the petitioners namely Sarvshri Angrez Singh, Pritam Singh and others. It has been further contended that the petitioners had executed an agreement in form `K'' and thus, disentitled themselves from seeking reference of the dispute to the Arbitrator. Any such form `K'' having been executed by Angrez Singh, Pritam Singh and others was not available on the relevant record and since these cosharers had made their applications for reference in time, in the absence of any agreement in form `K'' having been executed by them, the matter was referred for arbitration.

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and am of the firm view that the petition must succeed. The averments made by the respondents in their written statement clearly show that they are not definite whether the petitioners had filed reference applications Annexures P.1 and P.2 and have in fact asked for a direction to the petitioners to produce the office copies of these applications. When their cosharers had made applications for reference to the Arbitrator, it is quite natural for the petitioners to have made such applications against one and the same award.

Reliance placed by the respondents on the agreement executed by the petitioners, on form `K'', Annexures R.1, R.2 and R.3 is of no avail. The petitioners had submitted their applications raising the dispute for reference to the Arbitrator on 27.8.75. Form `K'' aforesaid purports to have been signed by them on 29.12.75 i.e., long after they had raised the dispute. It appears that these agreements were got signed from them when the payment of the amount awarded by respondent No. 2 was made to them. It was incumbent on respondent No. 2 to have referred the matter to the Arbitrator well in time. To withhold the payment of compensation already assessed by the Land Acquisition Collector and at the same time not to make reference in accordance with the provisions of the Act to the Arbitrator is to render the relevant provisions nugatory. The landowner is entitled to reasonable compensation determined by adjudication provided by the Act. I, therefore, attach no significance to agreement in form `K'' Annexures R.1, R.2 and R.3 set up in defence by the respondents. It is also worth mentioning that the respondents have not been able to categorically deny the fact that their cosharers Angrez Singh, Pritam Singh and others were also similarly made to sign agreement in form `K''. But in their case reference was made to the Arbitrator after a lapse of over nine years. All that has been set up in the reply is that the agreement in form `K'' alleged to have been signed by these cosharers of the petitioners is not available on the record.

The case of the petitioners is also strengthened by the fact that when their cosharers have been allowed compensation at the enhanced rate by the Arbitrator i.e., the learned Additional District Judge, Bhatinda, vide award dated 19.1.85, Annexure P.3, they would be entitled to the payment of compensation at the rate determined through said award Annexure P.3. It has been held by a Division Bench of this Court in State of Haryana v. Bishan Dass, 1981 PLJ 40, that when one of the cosharers of the joint land which has been acquired, makes by application for reference for enhancement of compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Collector, the benefit of the award given by the District Judge on adjudication of such reference would be available to the other cosharers as well. Thus, I do not see any reason why the petitioners be denied the remedy available to them under the statute for adjudication of their reference and resultant enhancement of compensation payable to them in accordance with law.

I, therefore, allow this petition with costs and by issuance of a writ of mandamus, direct the respondents to submit their references to the Arbitrator in accordance with the provisions of section 8(1)(b) of the Act on the basis of petitioners'' applications Annexures P.1 and P.2 within two months from today.