UNION OF INDIA AND ANR. versus DISTRICT JUDGE, UDHAMPUR AND ORS.

Citation: [1994] 3 S.C.R. 360 · Decided: 05-04-1994 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. RAMASWAMY, N. VENKATACHALA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
UNION OF INDIA AND ANR. 
v. 
DISTRICT JUDGE, UDHAMPUR AND ORS. 
APRIL 5, 1994 
[K. RAMASWAMY AND N. VENKATACHALA, JJ.] 
Jammu and Kashmir Requisitioning and Acquisition of Immovable 
Property Act, 1968: Sections 7, 8, 16 and 21. 
C 
Land-:li.equisition and Acquisition by State at the instance of Union 
D 
E 
F 
of India-Competent Authority-Determination of Market Value by Union of 
lndicr-Whether has right to associate with Competent Authority-Approval of 
compensation by Union of Indicr-Whether necessary-{Jnion of India 
whether has Locus Standi to object to the compensation-Arbitrator ap-
pointed under the Act-Whether has power to award Interest and solatium. 
Section 2(dt-'Person lnterested'-Who is. 
Requisition and Acquisition of Immovable Property Rules, 1969 : Rule 
9. 
Expression 'Local Officers of the Government concerned with the 
Property'-Scope of 
In exercise of its powers under Section 21 read with Section 7 of the 
Jammu and Kashmir Requisitioning and Acquisition of Immovable 
Property Act, 1968 the State of Jammu and Kashmir reqnisitioned and 
acquired certain lands at the instance of Union of India for extension of 
Air Field at Udhampur. The Competent Authority, appointed under Sec-
tion 16, determined the market value of the land and also awarded 15% 
solatium and interest at 4% from the date of Notification under Section 7 
to the date on which possession of the land was taken. Thereafter, the 
G Competent Authority issued a letter about the market value determined 
by him to the Local Officer for approval. The Local Officer stated that 
though he was agreeable to the amount determined, unless the approval 
of the Government of India was obtained, he cannot give his concurrence. 
However, no concurrence of Government of India was obtained nor was 
H any offer communicated to it for acceptance. Since the Union of India bad 
360 
-
U.0.1. v. DISTI. JUDGE, UDHAMPUR 
361 
not approved the determination of market value of land it sought reference A 
under Section 8 of the Act and a District Judge was appointed Arbitrator 
under Section S(l)(b). But the respondent raised objection that the en-
quiry to be conducted by the Arbitrator would be without jurisdiction 
because the award passed by the Competent Authority was offer which was 
acceptable to the respondent and the Union of India had no right to object B 
to the award as requisition and acquisition had been done by the Com-
petent Authority on behalf of the Union of India. Since the Arbitrator 
proceeded with the enquiry without deciding the objection the respondents 
filed a Writ Petition in the High Court which directed the Competent 
Authority to enter into an agreement with the respondents in Form 'K' by 
holding that the award passed by the Competent Authority was on offer C 
and the same having been accepted by the respondent it must be deemed 
to be one made under Rule 9 of the Requisition & Acquisition of Immov-
able Property Rules, 1969 read with Section 8(1)(a) of the Act. 
On appeal the Division Bench while upholding the view of the Single 
Judge that the award of the Competent Authority was an offer and that D 
the appellants were bound by the offer, set aside the direction given to 
enter into an agreement in Form 'K', instead it directed the District Jndge 
to decide the objections. filed by the appellants. Thereafter, the District 
Judge overruled the objection and held that the respondents have accepted 
the offer. Though no finding was recorded that the offer became enforce-
E 
able in consequence of rejecting the reference under Section 8(1)(b), it was 
concluded that the appellants were bound by the offer made by the Com-
petent Authority and it would be one enforceable under Section S(l)(a). 
The appellants filed a Writ Petition and a Division Bench while 
affirming the view of the Single Judge and the Division Bench in the earlier F 
proceedings held that the order passed by the District Judge was valid and 
the locus standi of the appellants to file the Writ Petition was doubted 
thereby accepting the stand taken by the respondents that the appellants 
were not the persons interested under Section 2(d) of the Act and dis-
missed the petition. Union of India preferred appeal in this Court. 
G 
Allowing the appeal, this Court 
HELD : 1.1. A reading of Section S(l)(a) of Jammu and Kashmir 
Requisitioning and Acquisition of Immovable Property Ac~ 1968 and-Rule 
9 made thereunder clearly indicate that the competent authority 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.