IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH DATE OF DECISION: February 15, 2010 CWP No. 20953 of 2008 (O&M) Gujjar Singh and another … Petitioners Versus Union of India and another …Respondents CWP No. 21800 of 2008 Surjit Singh and others …Petitioners Versus Union of India and another …Respondents CWP No. 196 of 2010 Dalbir Singh … Petitioner Versus Union of India and others … Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA CHAUHAN Present: Mr. S.S. Chopra, Advocate, for the petitioner(s) in CWP Nos. 20953 & 21800 of 2008. None for the petitioner in CWP No. 196 of 2010. Mr. Sukhdeep Singh Sandhu, Advocate, in CWP Nos. 20953 & 21800 of 2008, and Mr. Rajiv Sharma, Advocate, in CWP No. 196 of 2010, for the respondents. 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? M.M. KUMAR, J. CWP Nos. 20953, 21800 of 2008 & CWP No. 196 of 2010 This order shall dispose of Civil Writ Petition Nos. 20953 and 21800 of 2008 and 196 of 2010 as common question of law and facts are involved in all these cases. The common prayer made in these petitions is for appointment of an Arbitrator to determine the just and fair compensation of the acquired land. Without adverting to the facts it is suffice to observe that the land of the petitioners has been acquired under the Requisitioning and Acquisition of Immovable Property Act, 1952 (for brevity, ‘the Act’), vide notifications dated 9.3.1987 (in CWP Nos. 20953 & 21800 of 2008) and 4.3.1967 (in CWP No. 196 of 2010). The controversy in these petitions pertains to offer and acceptance of the compensation of the acquired land. The petitioners have claimed that since the fair and just compensation has not been determined, therefore, they never sent a valid offer accepting the compensation. They are, thus, seeking a mandamus for appointment of an Arbitrator to determine the just and fair compensation. On the other hand the respondents have opposed the prayer made by the petitioners primarily on the ground of delay and laches. Having heard learned counsel for the parties we are of the considered view that the controversy raised in these petitions is no longer res integra and the same has been settled by this Court more than once, which has even been upheld by Hon’ble the Supreme Court. A similar controversy was raised before this Court in CWP Nos. 12280, 12281, 12189 and 12193 of 1995. A Division Bench of this Court allowed the said petitions vide order dated 31.1.1996 passed in CWP No. 12280 of 1995 (Karam Dev Bansal and others v. Union of India) [Annexure P-4 with CWP No. 20953 of 2008]. After referring to the relevant rules i.e. Rule 9(5) of the Requisitioning and Acquisition of Immovable Property Rules, 1953, the Division Bench observed as under:- 2 CWP Nos. 20953, 21800 of 2008 & CWP No. 196 of 2010 “ There is no deeming provision provided by the rules. For non-communication of acceptance or rejection in writing by itself would not result in an inference of deemed acceptance of the offer, particularly when statutorily it is required that in the event of acceptance of the offer, the Government would enter into an agreement with the petitioners on behalf of the Central Government in the prescribed form. In our considered view, there being no express or implied consent of accepting the offer result in the agreement, mere non- communication of acceptance or rejection would by itself be not an attribute of acceptance of offer binding the petitioners. Nor it would be deemed an acceptance particularly when no statutory agreement was executed interest (inter se?) the parties. In view of the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case, the petitioners are deprived of their property. The rules have to be interpreted strictly. The only reasonable inference is that petitioners have never accepted the offer made, and are within their legitimate right to seek appointment of an Arbitrator which is just and equitable demand of the petitioners. The State cannot deprive the petitioners of their property and foreclose their just and equitable claim to be determined by appointment of an Arbitrator. Resultantly, the writ petition is allowed and the respondents are directed to appoint an Arbitrator within three months.” The aforementioned view has been upheld by Hon’ble the Supreme Court while dismissing Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) Nos. 20443- 3 CWP Nos. 20953, 21800 of 2008 & CWP No. 196 of 2010 20446 of 1996, filed by the Union of India, vide order dated 19.9.1997 (Annexure P-5 with CWP No. 20953 of 2008), which reads thus:- “ We have heard learned counsel for the parties and examined the record. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the direction given by the High Court in C.W.P. No. 12198/98 on 31.01.96, and in the connected writ petitions, does substantial justice and does not call for any interference. The special leave petitions are, therefore, dismissed.” Similar view was taken by this Court in CWP No. 7767 of 1999, decided on 29.1.2001, and CWP Nos. 6522, 6523 and 6525 to 6530 of 2002, decided on 16.9.2003 (Annexures P-7 and P-6 respectively in CWP No. 20953 of 2008). Similar controversy was also raised in CWP Nos. 4411, 4412, 6380 and 10088 of 1988, which came up for consideration before a learned Single Judge of this Court on 11.12.2008 (Annexure P-5 in CWP No. 196 of 2010). While disposing of those petitions, learned Single Judge has observed as under:- “ 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 4 CWP Nos. 20953, 21800 of 2008 & CWP No. 196 of 2010 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 5 CWP Nos. 20953, 21800 of 2008 & CWP No. 196 of 2010 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.” In view of above, we find that the present petitions are squarely covered by various decisions referred to above. Accordingly, the respondents are directed to refer the dispute 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. The writ petitions as well as the pending civil miscellaneous applications are disposed of. The office is directed to place a photocopy of this order on the file of each connected case. (M.M. KUMAR) JUDGE (JITENDRA CHAUHAN) February 15, 2010 JUDGE Pkapoor 6