THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY Writ Petition No.22776 of 2009 ORDER: The petitioners are said to be the owners of Ac.19.19 guntas of land in Sy.No.41/2-1 of Kanchanbagh Revenue Village, Bandlaguda Mandal, Hyderabad District. That land, along with certain extent, was requisitioned by the 1st respondent, in the year 1978, in exercise of power under Requisitioning and Acquisition of Immovable Properties Act, 1952 (for short ‘the RAIP Act’). Thereafter notification, dated 07- 03-1985, was issued under Section 7(1) of the RAIP Act, proposing to acquire the land. The neighbouring land owners, whose lands were also under requisition, filed W.P.No.5200 of 1992 and batch, alleging that the acquisition must be under the Land Acquisition Act (for short the ‘LA Act’), and not under the RAIP Act. In respect of the lands of the petitioners, they have also filed W.P.No.8584 of 1992. The writ petition was allowed, directing that the land shall be acquired by invoking the provisions of the LA Act. Respondents filed Writ Appeal No.1697 of 1999. The direction issued in the writ petition, to the effect that the land be acquired under the LA Act, was set aside. It was left open to the respondents to take necessary steps. Direction was also issued to the respondents for payment of compensation for the use and occupation of the land, till the acquisition of the property arrives finality. In pursuance of this direction, the 3rd respondent, in exercise of power under RAIP Act, passed an order dated 11-07-2009, awarding a sum of Rs.4,59,873/- to the petitioners. The same is challenged in this writ petition. It is urged that the 3rd respondent be directed to fix the compensation, as prayed for, by the petitioners, in their representation dated 24-07-2009, or to refer the matter to arbitration, under Section 8(1)(b) of the RAIP Act. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Standing Counsel for the Central Government, and learned Government Pleader for Revenue. The 3rd respondent awarded a sum of Rs.4,59,873/-, as compensation, for five spells of four years each. The compensation paid for the period from 1978-84, i.e. Rs.400/-, per acre, was treated as basis. The resultant figure for each term was enhanced by adding 26.9%. In case the petitioners are not satisfied with that, they have to avail the remedy under Section 8 of the RAIP Act. Section 8(1)(b) of that Act provides for appointment of an arbitrator, who shall be the person, qualified as a Judge of the High Court. The 1st respondent is the competent authority to make such appointment. The statutory right of the petitioners cannot be defeated. Hence, the writ petition is disposed of, directing that the 1st respondent shall pass appropriate orders on the representation dated 24-07-2009, made by the petitioners, for appointment of an Arbitrator, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________________ L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J. Dt.02-11-2009. KO