UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. versus MUNSHA AND ORS.

Citation: [1995] SUPP. 5 S.C.R. 25 · Decided: 09-11-1995 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. RAMASWAMY · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

.... 
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. 
A 
v. 
MUNSHA AND ORS. 
NOVEMBER 9, 1995 
[K. RAMASWAMY AND B.L. HANSARIA, JJ.] 
B 
"': 
Requisitioning and Acquisition of Immovable Property Act, 1952/Req-
uisitioning and Acquisition of Immovable Property Rules 1953 : 
S.8( l)(b )/R.9(5)(i)-lmmovable property-Acquisition of-Compensa- c 
tion-Appointment of arbitrator-Land owners' claim for interest due to delay 
in appointment of arbitrato~Held, land owners having failed to communi-
cate their acceptance or otherwise of offer made by competent authority, no 
dutj cast on it to appoint arbitrator-No /aches in appointment of arbitrator 
as obligation to appoint arbitrator arises where interested person communi-
D 
cates his non-acceptance of offer enjoined by R.9(5) (i)-Award of arbitrator 
,, 
awarding 30% solatium and 9% interest for one year from taking possession 
and thereafter 15% till deposit on enhanced compensation set aside. 
Certain lands of the respondents were acquired under the Requisi-
tioning and Acquisition of Immovable Property Act, 1952. The Land Ac-
E 
quisition Officer made the award in 1970 anil awarded compensation, at 
the rate of Rs. 375 per kanal. In 1986, the respondents filed a writ petition 
before the High Court for appointment of an arbitrator. The writ petition 
was allowed and an arbitrator was appointed who gave his award deter-
mining compensation at the Rate of Rs. 150 per maria. He also awarded F 
30% solatium and 9% interest for one year from the date of taking 
possession and thereafter 15% till the date of deposit on the enhanced 
compensation. The Government challenged the award before the High 
Court in an appeal which was dismissed. They filed a letters patent appeal 
and prayed for an ad intelim stay. The High Court refused the stay and G 
directed to release the payment of compensation. Aggrieved, the Govern-
ment filed the appeal by special leave. 
)~ 
It was contended for the respondents that on failure to accept the 
offer of payment of compensation determined by the Land Acquisition 
Officer, tl10ugh the respondents had not communicated their refusal, on H 
25 
26 
SUPREME COURT REPbRTS [1995] SUPP. 5 S;C.R. 
A 
expiry of the prescribed period, a_ duty was cast upon the competent 
authority and the Central Government to appoint the arbitrator, and since 
there was delay in appointment of the arbitrator, the appellants were liable 
to pay the interest. 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
Rejecting the claim of the respondents and allowing the appeal, this 
Court 
HELD: 1.1. Sub-rules(3), (5) and (6) of Rule 9 of the Requisitioning 
and Acquisition of Immovable Property Rules 1953 indicate that after an 
award has been made, not only the competent authority is enjoined to 
communicate its offer in writing to the person interested, but the latter is 
also enjoined to communicate, within 15 days of the receipt of the offer, in 
writing to the competent authority "his acceptance or othe1wise of the offer'. 
Since admittedly the appellants had not communicated their acceptance 
or otherwise of the offer made by the competent authority, there was no 
duty cast on it to appoint arbitrator under S.S(l)(b) of the Requisitioning 
and Acquisition of Immovable Property Act, 1952. [29-B-C; G-H] 
1.2. There were no laches in appointment of arbitrator as the obliga-
tion to appoint arbitrator arises where the interested person communi-
cates his non-acceptance of the offer enjoined by sub-rule (5) (i) of Rule 9 
of the Rules. The requirement of sub-rule (6) of R.9 to submit a report to 
the Central Government where the person to whom offer has been made 
does not communicate within 15 days, cannot be regarded as requiring the 
Central Government to appoint arbitrator on knowing about the fact of 
non-communication of the interested person. Something more is needed to 
require appointment. of arbitrator-the i_nterested person must communi: 
cate about his non-acceptance of the offer, which was not done in the 
instant case. [30-C-E] 
Union of India v. Hari .Klishan Kliosla, [1993] Supp. 2 SCC 149, 
referred to. 
1.3. The award of the arbitrator awarding 30% solatium and interest 
at the rate of 9% for one year from the date of taking possession at 15% 
thereafter ~ill the date of deposit, stands set aside. [30-F] 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 10023 of 
H 
1995. 
.,. 
U.0.1. v. MUNSHA[RAMASWAMY,J.] 
27 
From the Judgment and Order dated 5.3.93 of the Punjab & Haryana A 
High Court in C.W.P. No. 316 of 199

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