LexaceLexace Ask the AI ›
โš–๏ธ Ask the AI about your situation:๐Ÿš— Car Accident๐Ÿ’ผ Work / Job๐Ÿ  Housing / Eviction๐Ÿ‘ช Family / Divorce๐Ÿ“‹ Contract Dispute๐Ÿ’ฐ Money Owed

INDER SINGH AND ORS. versus UNION OF INDIA AND ANR.

Citation: [1995] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 737 · Decided: 02-11-1995 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. RAMASWAMY, B.L. HANSARIA · Disposal: Dismissed

Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case

Judgment (excerpt)

INDER SINGH AND ORS. 
v. 
UNION OF INDIA AND ANR. 
NOVEMBER 2, 1995 
[K. RAMASWAMY AND B.L. HANSARIA, J.J.] 
Requisitioning and Acquisition of Immovable Propc1ty Act, 1952/Rules. 
S.B(b )/Rule 9(5)(i)-Landowners agreeing to receive compensation 
awarded-Executing 'K' form and accepting compensation without 
protest-Later 011 seeking appointment of Arbitrator-Held : Not entitled to. 
The Land Acquisition Collector passed an award and the appellants 
had agreed to receive the compensation, executed 'K' form as per Rule 
9(5) (i) of the Requisitioning and Acquisition of Immovable Property Rules 
A 
B 
c 
and accepted the compensation without 
protest. Thereafter they D 
preferred a writ petition before the High Court seeking appointment of 
an arbitrator under S.(8)(b) of the Requisitioning and Acquisition of 
Immovable property Act. The writ petition was dismissed. Hence this 
appeal. 
Dismissing the ap,peal, this Court 
HELD: The appellants having received the compensation under Form 
'K' without protest, Rule 9(5)(i) of the Requisitioning and Acquisition of 
Immovable Property Rules would apply to them and they are not entitled 
under Section 8(b) of the Act appointment of an arbitrator. [738-D J 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 10271 of 
1995. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 12.4.89 of the Punjab & 
Haryana High Court in C.W.P. No. 6274 of 1988. 
Sanjay Sarin and Ashok Mathur for the Appellants. 
N.N. Goswami, Ms. Anil Katiyar and Wasim Qadri for the Respon-
dents. 
The following Order of the Court was delivered : 
737 
E 
F 
G 
H 
738 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1995] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 
A 
Leave granted. 
B 
c 
D 
E 
The appellant had sought appointment of an arbitrator under Section 
8(h) of the Requisitioning and Acquisition of Immovable Property Act, 
1952. The High Court dismissed the writ petition on two grounds, namely, 
on delay as well as on merits. Thus this appeal by special leave. 
The Land Acquisitiorโ€ข Collector, the competent authority, had 
passed the award determining compensation at varied rates, namely, Rs. 
5,000, Rs. 4,200 and Rs. 2001 in respect of three different belts of land. 
Thereupon, 22 persons including the appellants herein had agreed to 
receive the compensation and executed 'K' Form. Agreement as per Rule 
9(5)(i) of the Rules made under the Act and accepted and compensation 
without protest. Section 8(b) of the Act requires appointment of arbitrator 
when there is no agreement between the parties reached on the compen-
sation determined by the Land Acquisition Officer. 
In view of the above circumstances, the appellants having received 
the compensation under Form 'K' without protest, Rule 9 (5) (i) would 
apply to them and they arc not entitled under Section 8(b) of the Act for 
appointment of an arbitrator. 
The appeal is accordingly dismissed. No costs. 
G.N. 
Appeal dismissed. 
โ€ข