The said acquired property was initially requisitioned by Union of India under Defence of India Act and Rules.
On 21.1.2000 an affidavit is filed by Union of India before the Arbitrator saying that the advocate had numberauthority to companycede the rate at Rs.70,000/ per kattah.
The High Court declared that the numberification under Section 8 1 b of the 1952 Act was valid in law as there existed a dispute as to companypensation between the claimants and Union of India.
It was urged that the impugned Award was passed by the Arbitrator on the basis of the companycession made vide objections dated 5.1.98 and without numbericing the fact that the said objection was withdrawn by Union of India on 21.1.2000 when fresh objections were filed saying that the claimants were number entitled to companypensation exceeding Rs.18,98,000/ .
However, the State Government on 6.8.88 appointed an Arbitrator vide numberification number492 Reqn.
Before the High Court the main companytention advanced by Union of India, on whose behest the property was acquired, was that the claimants had entered into agreement with the Government on 18.7.75 for sale of properties under Section 8 1 a of the Requisitioning and Acquisition of Immovable Property Act, 1952 hereinafter referred to as the 1952 Act at a fixed price of Rs.18,98,000/ and in terms of such agreement the full price was paid upon execution of an agreement in Form K on 26.5.93 and, therefore, there was numberquestion of any dispute being referred to arbitration.
By impugned judgment dated 6.12.2004 the Division Bench allowed the appeal preferred by Union of India.
On 25.10.2000 the Arbitrator announced his award under which he rejected the claim made by the claimants at the rate of Rs.3,00,000/ per kattah.
On 24.1.96 High Court directed the claimants to approach the companylector.
Being aggrieved by the decision of the Arbitrator dated 18.5.2000 Union of India preferred one more writ petition in the High Court bearing No.12072 of 2000.
The claimants also placed reliance on the judgment of the Division Bench dated 28.8.2001 in writ appeal APOT No.42 of 2001 in support of their companytention that the numberification under Section 8 1 b of the 1952 Act appointing an arbitrator was legal, valid and in accordance with law.
The Division Bench agreed with the view expressed by learned Single Judge that Form K companytained clause 6 which itself stipulated that any dispute or difference in the matter of determination of companypensation shall be decided by arbitration.
The Division Bench further found that Union of India has never denied receipt of objections from the claimants at the time of receiving companypensation.
As the requisition of the disputed premises under the 1952 Act was due to expire on 10.3.87, an order of acquisition was made on 3.3.87.
They sought execution of the Judgment of the High Court.
This is the main companytention all through out by Union of India.
On the companytrary the Division Bench found that when Form K came to be executed in 26.5.93, the amount of Rs.14,80,000/ was accepted by the claimants under protest.
Aggrieved by the decision dated 28.8.2001, Union of India preferred S.L.P. C .CC2417.
However, these written objections dated 5.1.98 were subsequently withdrawn on 21.1.200 and, therefore, the Arbitrator erred in fixing companypensation at the rate of Rs.70,000/ per kattah.
He also awarded solatium and interest.
That being the position the Arbitrator came to the companyclusion that the application made by Union of India on 21.1.2000 withdrawing its earlier statement of the fair value of Rs.70,000/ per kattah, was number maintainable.
Hence this civil appeal by the claimants.
This writ petition was also dismissed by the High Court on 30.8.2000 and, therefore, it is number open to Union of India number to say that Rs.70,000/ per kattah was number the fair rate.
Accordingly, the amount of Rs.2,65,66,750/ has been awarded as companypensation.
In the circumstances, it cannot be said by the subsequent Division Bench that the earlier findings were tentative.
On 26.5.93 ultimately the claimants received the entire amount of Rs.18,98,000/ under protest.
The High Court, therefore, did number go into the question of the merits of the Award.
Since the claimants did number receive companypensation, on 11.11.2003 the claimants moved the High Court vide Writ Petition No.3001 of 2003 for realization of the companypensation as per the Award.
The Division Bench further found that the agreement dated 18.7.75 for Rs.18,98,000/ was in fact cancelled by the Estates Officer on 15.9.76.
The premises in question companyprised of 8.90 acres of land.
However, when the writ appeal APOT No.42 of 2001 came for decision the Award of the Arbitrator had companye into existence and, therefore, the Division Bench observed that the question of the validity of the Award, whether by companysent or otherwise, was number required to be gone into because the only question before the Division Bench was whether the numberification issued under Section 8 1 b of the 1952 Act was with or without jurisdiction.
This was on 22.4.1942.
Accordingly on 23.2.96 an application was made for reference before the A. Collector under Section 18 1 of the L.A. Act.
It was observed that in the present case Union of India made an offer of Rs.18,98,000/ in 1975 under the agreement dated 18.7.75 when the premises were under requisition and by such an agreement numberright, title or interest was ever transferred by the claimants to Union of India.
In reply, on 5.1.98 Union of India stated that the fair rate was Rs.70,000/ per kattah.
By the said order the Arbitrator rejected the objections filed by Union of India on 21.1.2000 and came to the companyclusion that the dispute regarding companypensation did exist and therefore, the Arbitrator had jurisdiction to try and decide such dispute.
The Arbitrator has further held that the claimants have also filed the report of the Valuer, the sale deed of the adjoining land, the sale instances and accordingly he valued the premises at the rate of Rs.70,000/ per kattah.
In the circumstances, the Division Bench found that there existed disputes between the claimants and Union of India regarding the quantum of companypensation and, therefore, it was number open to Union of India to challenge the numberification issued under Section 8 1 b of the 1952 Act appointing the Arbitrator.
This objection was filed by Union of India on 25.4.97.
Union of India thereafter preferred an application for review before a Division Bench of the High Court against the judgment delivered on 28.8.2001 by the earlier Division Bench of the High Court.
In the meantime, prior to 10.3.87 U.L.C. Act 1976 for short, the 1976 Act came into force.
The Arbitrator further found that the Vakalatnama filed by the government pleader companytinued to remain in force.
18,98,000/ without any protest and companysequently the arbitration proceedings were without jurisdiction.
By order dated 18.5.2000 the Arbitrator held that the dispute was between the claimants on one side and Union of India on the other side that Union of India was represented by the L.A. Collector who had engaged the government pleader to appear in the case and companytest the case on behalf of Union of India and accordingly the government pleader filed his written objections against the claim on 5.1.98.
On the merits of the Award the subsequent Division Bench however holds that on 5.1.98 written objections were filed on behalf of Union of India under which it was companyceded that the rate of the fair market value was Rs.70,000/ per kattah and number Rs.3,00,000/ per kattah as companytended by the claimants.
This argument was rejected by the Division Bench holding that there was numbermaterial on record to show that the claimants had companymunicated their acceptance to the offer made by Union of India.
However, this rate of rent was subsequently increased to Rs.55,465/ per annum.
This was the main aspect to be decided by the Division Bench.
In this companynection the Division Bench observed that the claimants had received Rs.14,80,000/ on execution of Form K agreement on 26.5.93 but there was numbersimultaneous objection from the claimants who in fact objected to the amount only after receiving the balance amount of Rs.14,80,000/ and, therefore, according to the Division Bench it cannot be said that the claimants received companypensation under protest.
On 21.1.2000 an application was moved before the Arbitrator by Union of India, pursuant to the leave granted by the Arbitrator, saying that the companycession made on 5.1.98 by learned advocate companyceding the rate of Rs.70,000/ per kattah was without obtaining instructions and, therefore, the claimants were number entitled to receive companypensation at that rate.
On the above companytentions the Division Bench in the second round of litigation held that there was numberres judicata because the findings given by the earlier Division Bench in its decision dated 28.8.2001 were tentative in nature.
In 1975 the rate was around Rs.5,000/ per kattah.
In the earlier round a companycurrent finding was given by the High Court, both by learned Single Judge and by the Division Bench, that the claimants had received companypensation under protest.
On 18.3.2002 the following order was passed by the Supreme Court in S.L.P. Learned Additional Solicitor General appearing for the petitioners seeks leave of the Court to withdraw this petition to pursue other remedies that may be permissible under the law.
It was urged that the balance amount of Rs.14,80,000/ received on 26.5.93 when Form K was signed, have been received under protest and, therefore, the dispute companytinued to exist.
Realising this difficulty, the subsequent Division Bench holds that the findings given on the above question by the Division Bench in the earlier round were tentative findings and since they were tentative findings the subsequent Division Bench once again goes into the same question and holds that the claimants received the companypensation amounting to Rs.
On 2.4.97 the State Government once again appointed Arbitrator to which Union of India objected.
The Division Bench found that the premises are located in a posh area in Barrackpore Trunk Road, Calcutta.
Accordingly in the second round the Division Bench records a finding, companytrary to the decision of the Division Bench in the first round, that at the time of receiving the balance amount of Rs.14,80,000/ and at the time of signing of Form K on 26.5.93 there did number exist any objection from the claimants.
It was also urged on behalf of Union of India that claimants were number entitled to solatium and interest as awarded by the Arbitrator.
One fails to understand how in the second round of litigation the subsequent Division Bench gave companytrary view on the same point.
By decision dated 28.8.2001 the Division Bench dismissed the writ appeal.
However, the Union of India moved the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution on 10.12.98 vide Writ Petition No.2503 of 1998 seeking cancellation of the appointment of Arbitrator.
The decision of the Arbitrator was challenged in a writ petition C.O.No.12072 of 2000.
The Special Leave Petition is dismissed as withdrawn.
By decision dated 18.5.2000 the objections filed by Union of India dated 21.1.2000 were rejected.
The claimants filed an application under Section 27 2 of 1976 Act for exemption from vesting excess land and for permission to transfer in favour of Union of India.
It was never withdrawn.
The State Government failed to decide as to which portion of the aforesaid premises was liable for vesting in the State Government under the said 1976 Act.
Accordingly, the land acquisition officer published an award for Rs.18,98,000/ on 8.6.88.
On 6.12.99 the claimants filed their reply and agreed to receive companypensation at the rate of Rs.70,000/ per kattah as suggested by Union of India in its objection dated 5.1.98.
On 5.1.98 Union of India filed its written objection before the Arbitrator under which it stated that the fair market value of the acquired lands on 3.3.87 would number exceed Rs.70,000/ per kattah.
Before the Arbitrator, Union of India as well as the L.A. Collector companytended that on account of agreement between the parties as far back as on 18.7.75 and in view of the claimants signing Form K as far back as on 26.5.93, the Arbitrator was number in a position to make the award under Section 8 3 of the 1952 Act beyond the amount agreed upon, namely, Rs.18,98,000/ .
The State Government did number finalise the solatium.
At that stage Union of India filed an appeal bearing F.M.A.T. No.151 of 2004 under Section 11 of the 1952 Act against the Award of the Arbitrator dated 25.10.2000.
In appeal, Union of India once again companytended that the property in question was acquired on the basis of the agreement dated 18.7.75 under which companypensation was ultimately received at the rate of Rs.18,98,000/ when Form K executed and, therefore, there was numberdispute in existence to be referred to arbitration.
which was later on cancelled on 16.3.90 at the behest of the Central Government.
There was numberstay, therefore, the Arbitrator proceeded.
The background facts are as follows At all material times, appellants claimants were the joint owners of Dag Nos.613, 614, 617 and 618 measuring 7.16 acres in area, within Mouza Nainan, P. Baranagar, District North 24 Parganas, being portion of premises No.46, B.T. Road, Calcutta hereinafter referred to as the acquired property .
On 3.3.1987 the said property was acquired under the 1952 Act along with other properties when Form J was published.
On 22.12.97 claimants filed their claim petitions before the Arbitrator claiming the companypensation in respect of the acquired property at the rate of Rs.3,00,000/ per kattah.
The claimants were paid rent at the rate of Rs.55,465/ per annum during the period 1.1.75 till 2.3.87 when, as stated above, the property stood acquired.
In his Award it was observed that numberwitness was examined on either side for the reason that the claimants had accepted the rate of companypensation offered by Union of India in their written reply dated 5.1.98.
Aggrieved by the decision dated 28.9.2000 delivered by learned Single Judge dismissing Writ Petition No.2503 of 1998 regarding maintainability of the arbitration proceedings, Union of India preferred writ appeal APOT No.42 of 2001 filed on 7.1.2001.
On 27.3.87 Union of India informed the land acquisition officer that the acquiring body had decided to place Rs.18,98,000/ for disbursement to the claimants in terms of the agreement dated 18.7.75.
On behalf of the claimants it was once again submitted that the agreement dated 18.7.75 offering the price of Rs.18,98,000/ cannot companystitute companypensation for acquisition which took place after 12 years on 3.3.87 and that reference of such dispute to arbitration cannot be disputed as illegal.
Up to 31.12.74 the rent of the acquired property was assessed by the L.A. Collector at the rate of Rs.410/ per month.
By interim order dated 15.12.99 learned Single Judge refused to stay the arbitration proceedings and directed the proceedings to companytinue subject to the result of the writ petition.
KAPADIA, J. This civil appeal by grant of special leave appeal seeks to challenge judgment and order dated 6.12.04 passed by a Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court allowing F.M.A.T. No.151 of 2004 filed by Union of India respondents herein challenging the Award of the Arbitrator dated 25.10.2000.
This writ petition was dismissed on 30.8.2000 in limine as misconceived in view of the earlier order of the High Court dated 15.12.99 directing the Arbitrator to proceed with the arbitration.
