The relevant date for assessing the expenses of restoration of property under cl. (iv) of Section 8(2) (b) of Act XXX of 1952 is when the requirement to assess arises and not either the date of requisition or the date when demolition may have been carried out.

AMARESH ROY, J. :- This appeal has been preferred by two referring claimants against an Award made by the Arbitrator determining compensation in respect of a property requisitioned under Rule 75-A of Defence of India Rules, 1939, which requisition was made by an order dated 25th October, 1943. The reference was made by L. A. Collector on 6th February, 1959 purporting to do so under Section 19 of Defence of India Act, 1939 to an Arbitrator appointed under G. O. No. 924, dated 14-1-59 for determination of proper valuation of compensation for structures demolished in respect of C. S. Plot No. 1081 of Mouza Palta P. S. Noapara in 24-Parganas. Each of the appellants claim moiety share in the property and therefore same shares in the compensation. There is no dispute as to that. That reference was made in the state of facts which are not in controversy before us in the appeal. Those facts are that C. S. Plot No. 1081 with structures standing thereon was requisitioned by the Government for military purposes in connection with the construction of the Barrackpore Airfield. Owner of the requisitioned property then was Sk. Abdul Aziz and his brother. An assessment of recurring compensation fixed at Rs. 15/- per month was made after requisition. The then owners did not dispute that offer of recurring compensation and compensation has been paid to them and to present owners of the property till 15th April, 1957. Three years after requisition one of the brothers sold his share of the property to Upendra Kumar Nandi who and Sk. Abdul Aziz are the present appellants.

2. When the property was still remaining under requisition, as it remains even now, in 1957 the L. A. Collector made an assessment of terminal compensation for the building which was demolished soon after requisition in 1943, and made an offer to the owners of Rs 4,600/-as compensation for the demolished building. The owners did not agree to that assessment though they received payment of Rs. 3,680/- (80% of assessed compensation) under protest on 2-9-57. They made a claim of Rs. 12,000/- as fair compensation for the demolished structures and demanded reference to Arbitration. Reference was made by L. A. Collector on 6th February, 1959 when the property was still under requisition and it had neither been derequisitioned nor converted into acquisition. Both in the order of reference and Notification appointing the Arbitrator the subject of reference has been mentioned as :

"Compensation for structures demolished in respect of C. S. Plot No. 1081 of Mouza Palta, P. S. Noapara, 24-Par-ganas."

That has been numbered as Arbitration Case No. 32 of 1958. The Arbitrator proceeded to try the case on evidence and has disposed it of by making an Award in which he assessed the value of structures on the basis of valuation in 1943-44 and fixed it at Rs. 6,579/-, then deducted depreciation at 10% and determined compensation at Rs. 5,921/- allowing interest on that amount at 6% per annum from 16th April, 1957 till

realisation. The referring claimants have preferred appeal against that Award. Respondent Union of India has not preferred any appeal or cross-objection.

3. Appearing for the appellants the learned Advocate Mr. Gupta sought to assail the judgment of the Arbitrator mainly on the ground that for assessing the compensation for the demolished structure, the cost of restoring the building in the condition it was in 1943 (when requisition was made) should be calculated at the rates prevailing in 1957 when notice of such demolition was given and not at the rates prevailing in 1943-44 as the L. A. Collector had made for assessing for the purpose of making an offer and the Arbitrator had also accepted for making his Award on his finding that the building was demolished soon after requisition probably in 1944. In support of that contention Mr. Gupta relied on the provisions of Section 8 of Act XXX of 1952. Both parties agree that the case is governed by that Act though the Act has now been