IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.W.P. No. 4411 of 1988. Date of Decision: 11th December, 2008. Shiv Devi ....Petitioner through Mr. R.S.Manhas, Advocate Versus Union of India ...Respondent through Mr. S.K.Sharma, Advocate CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT. 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? SURYA KANT, J. [ORAL) This order shall dispose of Civil Writ Petition Nos. 4411, 4412, 6380 and 10088 of 1988 as common questions of law and facts are involved in all these cases. For brevity, the facts are being extracted from CWP No. 4411 of 1988. The petitioners, whose land was acquired under the Defence of India Act, 1962 read with the Defence of India [Requisition and Acquisition of Immovable Property] Rules, 1962 seek a Mandamus for appointment of an Arbitrator to determine the 'just and fair compensation' of the acquired land. The respondents have filed their counter-affidavit opposing the petitioners' prayer primarily on the ground of delay and laches. Learned counsel for the parties are ad-idem that the issues raised in these writ petitions have been effectively answered by this Court vide order dated 20th October, 2008 passed in CWP No.6985 of 2006 [Ranjit Singh v Union of India & Anr.], though in that case, the land was acquired under the Requisitioning and Acquisition of Immovable Property Act, 1952. In Ranjit Singh's case [supra], this Court held as follows:- “Having heard Learned Counsel for the parties at some length and on perusal of the record, I am of the considered view that these writ petitions deserve to succeed in part though with a caveat that the question as to whether or not the petitioner was sent a valid offer under Rule 9(3) and (5) of the Rules and whether or not the same was received by him, are purely questions of fact which cannot be satisfactorily gone into by this Court in exercise of its extraordinary writ jurisdiction and are left open to be decided by the Arbitrator. It is well settled that an arbitrator under the statute is competent to decide all the ancillary and allied questions arising in relation to the principal dispute referred for adjudication. One of the contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner is that the notices were not sent at the correct address. If that is so, prima-facie, the objection raised by the respondents that the petitioner failed to respond within the stipulated period of 15 days, cannot sustain. Similarly, if the respondents are able to prove before the arbitrator that the notices were in fact sent and received by the petitioner and his acquiescence amounts to accepting the offer, the respondents would be well within their right to contend that the petitioner's claim is not maintainable and that issuance of a legal notice by him in the year 2005 was nothing but a futile attempt to revive the cause the action which had actually accrued in his favour way back in the year 1990. No final opinion, however, can be expressed on these contentious issues at this stage”. For the reasons already assigned in Ranjit Singh's case [supra], these writ petitions are allowed in part to the extent that the respondents are directed to refer the dispute pertaining to the determination of compensation payable to the petitioners for their acquired land, to the Arbitrator for adjudication within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. It shall, however, be open to the respondents to raise the pleas of estoppel as well as delay and laches or that there exists no dispute requiring adjudication by the Arbitrator. All the contentions shall be gone into by the Arbitrator, in accordance with law. Disposed of accordingly. December 11, 2008. ( SURYA KANT ) dinesh JUDGE