Judgment

R.M. SAHAI, J.

(1) THE question of law raised on behalf of the respondents assailing the legality and propriety of recommendation to award interest in the report submitted on 26/4/1994 by the learned Solicitor General of India appointed by this court on 4/12/1992 to determine compensation under the Requisitioning and Acquisition of Immovable Property Act, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) was little surprising as when a bench of this court, of which one of us was a member (R.M. Sahai, J.), after hearing the appeal for quite sometime, rather on number of days, requested the learned Attorney General of India, initially to look into the matter and report, but ultimately appointed the learned Solicitor General of India, with common consent of all parties and explicit understanding that the determination by him would not be challenged, it was thought that the curtain on the long-drawn and chequered history of litigation has been finally drawn.

(2) BEFORE considering the submission on merits, it may be mentioned that basic objection against the award by a retired Judge of the High court was that the power to appoint arbitrator under the Act vested in the central government alone. This objection might have been taken even against the report submitted by the learned Solicitor General of India and was in fact suggested, though feebly, by the learned counsel for the State of West Bengal but the learned Senior Counsel Dr Gauri Shankar who appeared for Respondent 3 and led the arguments in his usual characteristic fairness brushed aside the suggestion as the order had been passed by this court and the officer was no one else than the learned Solicitor General of India whose a impeccable integrity and fairness was given a word of praise by him. Yet the law must take its course even when a litigant like State insists and instructs the counsel to fight it out, presumably, because the enormous expenditure involved in such exercise is public money for which no one is accountable.

(3) REVERTING to the facts, the premises known as "White Wool" Godown, owned by the appellant situated at 11 Mile, Kalimpong comprising of a three-storeyed building with a total constructed area of about 53,000.00 sq. ft. and open space of about 4.9 acres were requisitioned under the Act in July 1964. The possession was taken by the competent authority on 19-7-1964 and a sum of Rs. 834.00 per month was determined as its rent. In 1967 the appellant filed an arbitration case before the District Judge of Darjeeling, under the provisions of Section 8(l)(b) of the Act for determining the amount of compensation to be paid to the appellant. Since 1967 to 1980 the proceedings, before arbitrator, remained pending on account of transfer of the District Judges from time to time and the delay by the government in issuing necessary notifications in the appointment of fresh incumbents under Section 8 of the Act. In 1981 the appellant approached the High court for the appointment of an arbitrator and expeditious disposal of the arbitration case. In March 1981 the High court decided the writ petitions by accepting the second prayer of the appellant and directing the arbitrator to decide the dispute within six months. But the same position continued and the proceedings remained pending due to transfer of District Judges from 1981 to 1985. In September 1985 a consent order was passed directing the arbitrator to dispose of the case within 90 days. When no order was passed the appellant again approached the High court in May 1986 and the High court directed that the arbitrator was at liberty to proceed from the stage the proceedings had been left at by the previous arbitrator so that the proceedings may be decided expeditiously. Even though the High court had passed the order in May 1986 the arbitrator was appointed by the appropriate government in February 1987 who, too, was transferred in March 1987. Consequently the appellant again a