LexM/S. KALIMPONG LAND AND BUILDING LTD. AND ANR versus STATE 0F WEST BENGAL AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
MIS. KALIMPONG LAND AND BUILDING LTD. AND ANR.
A
v.
STATE
10F WEST BENGAL AND ORS.
SEPTEMBER 16, 1994
[R.M. SARAI AND N.P. SINGH, JJ.]
B
Rt;quisitioning and Acquisitioning of Immovable Property Act. 1952 :
Section 8(1)-Sub-clauses (d) and (e)-'Fair amount of compen-
sation'-Arbitrator to award an amount 'which appears to him just'-Meaning C
of-Property r.equisitioned three decades ago-Detennination of compensa-
tion-Delayed due to various reasons though the owner has been taking all
possible steps-Compensation and interest detennined by the Solicitor
General on Court's orders-Award of interest disputed-Held : Interest jus-
tified and could be read into the said provision.r-l'ayf!lent of compensation
and interest-Ordered.
D
A godown owned by the appellant comprising of a three storeyed
building with a constructed area of about 53,000 sq. ft. and open space of
about 4.9 acres were requisitioned in July, 1964 under the Requisitioning
and Acquisitioning of the immovable Property Act, 1958. The possession E
of the property was taken by the competent authority on 19th July, 1964
under the Requisition and Acquisitioning of the Immovable property Act,
1958, and a sum of Rs. 834 per month was determined as its rent. In 1967
the appellant filed an arbitration case before the District Judge. However,
till 1980 his application remains pending due to frequent transfers and
non-filling up the post of District Judge. Thereafter the appellant had to F
approach the High Court twice and ultimately a retired Judge was ap·
pointed as Arbitrator. The award was made and signed on 11th August,
1988. After issuing notice to the parties, the District Judge passed an
exparte order in terms of the arbitration award.
Since no payment was forthcoming, the appellant approached the G
High Court in October, 1988 for necessary directions to respondents to
make immediate payment. Respondents filed an application under Order
9 Rule 13 C.P.C. for setting aside the exparte order. The District Judge set
aside the exparte order. However this order was recalled on the ground
that the arbitrator could have been appointed by the Central Government H
589
590
SUPREME COURT REPORTS {1994) SUPP. 3 S.C.R:
A
alone. The appellant challenged this order by filing a revision before the ·
High Court and the same was dismissed. Hence this appeal.
B
' '
This Court considered that it would be expedient if the matter was
examined by the Attorney General in view of the long delay that had taken
place in the determination of compensation, but since he was not available,
the Solicitor General was requested to do so and he submitted a report
according to which the appellant was entitled to a compensation of Rs.
30,91,711 with interest at 81/3%. The interest calculated upto 30th April,
1994 was Rs. 29,45,032.86.
C
On behalf of Respondents, it was contended that this Court having
directed the Solicitor General to determine the compensation only, the
award of interest was contrary not only to the said order but also to the
statutory provisions of the Arbitration Act.
On behalf of the appellant, it was contended that the dispute about
D interest was not raised earlier and it cannot be raised at this stage
especially when the compensation is now determined for a property which
was acquired as far back as 1964.
E
F
Allowing the appeal, this Court
HELD : 1. When this Court requested the Solicitor General of India.
to submit a report it was clearly understood that no party shall be
permitted to raise any objection. Since the submission inade on the report
amounts to objection against the report, it is not expedient to permit it to
be raised. Further, the objection to award interest was raised under
misapprehension that the Solicitor General was appointed as arbitrator.
In fact as is clear from the order, he was requested to look into the matter
and submit the report to enable this Court to do justice. In any case, this
Court does not find any good reason for not awarding interest to the
appellant. Interest is to make good the loss suffered by the person on
G delayed payment of compensation. When the appellant has been taking all ·
possible steps for determination of compensation, the denial of interest
would not be in the interest of justice. This Court, therefore, in exercise of
· its power to do substantial justice considers it expedient to accept the
report in its entirely. [597-B-D]
H
2. Although there isExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.