Back
2010 (7) Supreme 514
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
G.S. Singhvi and Dr. B.S. Chauhan, JJ.
West Bengal State Warehousing Corporation — Appellant
versus
M/s. Indrapuri Studio Pvt. Ltd. and another — Respondents
Civil Appeal No.3865 of 2006
Decided on : 19-10-2010
Facts of the Case :
Premises belonging to respondent No.1 was requisitioned herein in the instant case by State Government. After taking possession of requisitioned premises, State Government transferred the same to the appellant. An Arbitrator was appointed for determining amount of compensation payable to respondent No.1 in lieu of the requisition of its property .Though, appellant had no role to play in the matter of determination of compensation payable to respondent No.1, appellant got itself impleaded as party in arbitration proceedings.
2. Present Appeal has been filed against judgment of High Court whereby it declined to entertain the appeal filed by appellant under Section 11(1)(f) of ‘the Act’ against award passed by Arbitrator under Section 11(1)(e) on gound that a person acquiring interest in the property did not have right to participate in the arbitration proceedings or file an appeal against award.
Findings of the Court :
In terms of Section 11(1)(d), only State Government and the person to be compensated have right to state their respective opinions as to the fair amount of compensation. CThe person to whom the requisitioned premises are transferred has no role in any one of these matters. Since a person for whose benefit premises are requisitioned or to whom requisitioned premises are transferred does not have any locus to participate in the process of determination of compensation by agreement, or in the matter of appointment of an Arbitrator or reference of case to the Arbitrator or nomination of an assessor. Hence a person like the appellant could neither submit opinion under Section 11(1)(d) as to the fair amount of compensation nor Arbitrator was obliged to give notice and opportunity of hearing to such person under Section 11(1)(e) read with Section 12(a), (b) or (c). Therefore, such person was neither entitled to copy of the award as of right nor he could challenge award by filing an appeal under Section 11(1)(f) .No error was committed by High Court by declaring that appeal filed by appellant was not maintainable. Appeal was Dismissed.
Result : Appeal Dismissed.
JUDGMENT
G.S. Singhvi, J. —
1. This appeal is directed against the judgment of the Division Bench of Calcutta High Court whereby it declined to entertain the appeal filed by the appellant under Section 11(1)(f) of the West Bengal Premises Requisition and Control Act, 1947 (for short, ‘the Act’) against award dated 1.1.2003 passed by the Arbitrator under Section 11(1)(e).
2. The premises belonging to respondent No.1 (covered area measuring 11,900 sq. feet and open space measuring 10,620 sq. feet) situated at N.S.C. Bose Road, Tollygunge, Calcutta was requisitioned by the State Government under Section 3 of the Act. After taking possession of the requisitioned premises, the State Government transferred the same to the appellant.
3. Since the amount of compensation payable to respondent No.1 in lieu of the requisition of its property could not be fixed by agreement, the State Government appointed an Arbitrator under Section 11(1)(b) of the Act. Though, the appellant had no role to play in the matter of determination of compensation payable to respondent No.1, on being asked by Ist Land Acquisition Collector, Calcutta, the appellant got itself impleaded as party in the arbitration proceedings.
4. By an award dated 1.1.2003, the Arbitrator held that the State Government is liable to pay as compensation Rs.1,60,21,126/- for the covered area and Rs.54,82,076/- for the open space with interest at the rate of 18% per annum.
5. During the pendency of the arbitration proceedings, the appellant represented to the State Government for appointment of a new Arbitrator by asserting that a retired judicial officer cannot be appointed to act as an Arbitrator. Thereupon, Assistant Secretary, Land & Land Reforms Department, who might not have been aware of the factum of passing of award by the Arbitrator on 1.1.2003, sent letter dated 10.1.2003 to the Managing Director of the appellant that the judicial department of the Government had already been approached for appointment of a new Arbitrator. However, no further action appears to have been taken by the State Government for appointment of new Arbitrator.
6. After obtaining a copy of the award, the appellant filed an appeal under Section 11(1)(f), which was dismissed by the Division Bench of the High Court by observing that the appellant cannot be treated as a person interested in the compensation payable on account of requisition of the premises. The Division Bench referred to Section 6 of the Act and held that a person acquiring interest in the property does not have the right to participate in the arbitration proceedings or file an appeal against the award.
7. Shri S.B. Upadhyay, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant argued that the Division Bench of the High Court committed serious error by refusing to entertain the appeal ignoring that the appellant falls within the definition of the expression ‘person interested’ contained in Section 2(d) of the Act. Learned senior counsel submitted that any person who is or is likely to be adversely affected by the award of the Arbitrator would fall within the ambit of that expression and such person is entitled to challenge the award of the Arbitrator by filing an appeal under Section 11(1)(f). Learned senior counsel further submitted that the appellant cannot be denied the right to challenge the award because it may have to reimburse the amount payable to respondent No.1 in terms of the award. In support of his arguments, the learned senior counsel relied upon the judgment of this Court in U.P. Awas Evam Vikas Parishad v. Gyan Devi,1 (1995) 2 SCC 326.
8. Shri A.K. Ganguli, learned senior counsel appearing for respondent No.1 argued that the High Court did not commit any error by non suiting the appellant because it is not covered by the definition of the expression ‘person interested’. Learned senior counsel submitted that transfer of possession of the requisitioned premises to the appellant does not make the appellant a person interested
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
