Skip to content


The Sub-divisional Magistrate and the Land Acquisition Officer Vs. Raj Bahadur Singh and anr. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtAllahabad High Court
Decided On
Case NumberF.A.F.O. No. 605 of 1979
Judge
Reported inAIR1984All112
ActsDefence of India Act, 1962 - Sections 29 and 30; Requisitioning and Acquisition of Immovable Property Act, 1952 - Sections 11 and 25(2)
AppellantThe Sub-divisional Magistrate and the Land Acquisition Officer
RespondentRaj Bahadur Singh and anr.
Appellant AdvocateS.N. Upadhyaya, Adv.
Respondent AdvocateL.P. Naithani, Adv.
DispositionAppeal dismissed
Excerpt:
civil - requisition of land for defence purposes - sections 29 and 30 of defence of india act, 1962 - land requisitioned for defence purposes - compensation fixed by land acquisition officer - owner of property dissatisfied - matter referred to arbitrator - award passed - appeal filed against award by state - section 30 allows reference of dispute over compensation award to arbitrator - however no appeal allowed against award of such arbitrator. - .....1962 provides as under : '30. whenever in pursuance of section 29 the central government or the state government, as the case may be, requisitions any immovable property, there shall be paid to the persons interested compensation the amount of which shall be determined by taking into consideration the following, namely :-- (i) to (iii) .. ... ... .. .. provided that where any person interested being aggrieved by the amount of compensation so determined makes an application within the prescribed time to the centralgovernment or the state government, as the case may be, for referring the matter to an arbitrator appointed in this behalf by the central government or the state government, as the case may be, may determine. provided .. .. ... ... .. ... ... ... .. ... ... explanation.......
Judgment:

N.N. Mithal, J.

1. In this First Appeal From Order, the State has challenged the correctness of an award given by the arbitrator in a matter referred to him under Section 30, Proviso 1 of the Defence of India Act, 1962. The facts giving rise to the present appeal may be stated thus :

2. The Military Estates Officer, Meerut Cantt requisitioned 32.85 acres of land in a village in District Dehradun coming under its jurisdiction by an order dated 18-4-1963 under Section 29 of the Defence of India Act, 1962. Some land with trees, grovesand standing crop were taken possession by the Army authorities on 9-5-1963. While certain constructions and buildings were taken possession of on different occasions up to 9-6-1963. Compensation was determined by the Land Acquisition Officer whose award is dated 29th May, 1965. The owners of the requisitioned property were dissatisfied with the amount awarded and they challenged the same and requested the authorities to refer the matter to an arbitrator. It was subsequently referred to the District Judge, Saharanpur as an arbitrator who by his award dated 16th August, 1979 repelled most of the contentions of the claimants but awarded an additional sum of Rs. 4000/- in respect of an unroofed structure. The State being aggrieved by the decision of the District Judge has filed the present First Appeal From Order.

3. At the very outset, the learned counsel for the respondents, raised a preliminary objection that the appeal was not maintainable. It may be mentioned that the appeal had been preferred ostensibly under Section 11 read with Section 25(2) of the Requisitioning and Acquisition of Immovable Property Act (Act 30 of 1952).

4. Without going into the merits of the appeal, in my opinion, the preliminary objection must prevail. In a similar matter where the land had first been requisitioned and later on acquired under the provisions of Sections 36 and 37 of the Defence of India Act, 1962. It was found by a Division Bench of this Court in Union of India v. Amar Singh, AIR 1981 All 121 that right of appeal to a superior Court arises only when it is conferred by a statute. The determination of the appellate jurisdiction depends upon the terms of the statutory provisions in which it has its source. If a matter does not fall within the scope of the provisions, it should be dismissed.

5. Section 30 of the Defence of India Act, 1962 provides as under :

'30. Whenever in pursuance of Section 29 the Central Government or the State Government, as the case may be, requisitions any immovable property, there shall be paid to the persons interested compensation the amount of which shall be determined by taking into consideration the following, namely :--

(i) to (iii) .. ... ... .. ..

Provided that where any person interested being aggrieved by the amount of compensation so determined makes an application within the prescribed time to the CentralGovernment or the State Government, as the case may be, for referring the matter to an arbitrator appointed in this behalf by the Central Government or the State Government, as the case may be, may determine.

Provided .. .. ... ... .. ... ... ... .. ... ...

Explanation.. ... .. ... ... ... ... ... ... ...'

6. From the above it would be clear that the only mode for redress of any grievance to the owner of the property is by way of referring the matter regarding the quantum of compensation for determination to the arbitrator. Once the matter is decided by the arbitrator, that is the end of the matter and no appeal or further proceedings can be taken by any person aggrieved by the award of the arbitrator. The provision contained in Section 30 is similar to the provision contained in Section 37 (2) which applies in respect of acquisition of land which had been requisitioned earlier. The said section reads as under ;--

'37 (2). Where any person interested is aggrieved by the amount of compensation determined in accordance with Sub-section (1), he may make an application within the pre-scribed time to the Central Government or the State Government, as the case may be, for referring the matter to an arbitrator appointed in this behalf by the Central Government or the State Government, and the amount of compensation to be paid shall be such as may be determined by the arbitrator in accordance with Sub-section (1).'

7. In the case referred to above, the Division Bench of this Court had considered the provisions of Sections 36 and 37 (2) of the Defence of India Act, 1962 and it was held that there was no provision for an appeal against the award of the arbitrator. Exactly the same position arises in the case of an award under the first proviso to Section 30, Since there is no provision for an appeal in that section also, it follows that against the award of an arbitrator appointed under the Act, no appeal shall lie. The provisions of the Requisitioning and Acquisition of Immovable Property Act, 1952 do not apply to matters under Section 30 of the Defence of India Act. In the circumstances, the appeal filed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate was incompetent and is not maintainable.

8. The appeal, therefore, fails and is accordingly dismissed. There will be no order as to costs.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //