The provisions of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition Act apply to ongoing arbitration arising from the Resettlement Act, and compensation must be determined under this Act despite its repeal.

JUDGMENT

Navin Chawla, J.

REVIEW PETITION 107/2021 & CM APPL. 22997/2021, CM APPL. 29182/2021 & CM APPL. 30776/2021

1. The present Review Petition has been filed by the respondent no. 9, Mr Raman Aggarwal, and Mr Pradeep Aggarwal, who claims themselves to be the legal heirs of Late Shri R.S. Chiranji Lal, seeking review and modification of the Order dated 21.01.2020 passed by this Court in the above writ petition.

2. By the Order dated 21.01.2020, this Court had directed the respondent no. 22 to notify the appointment of a new Arbitrator under Section 7(1)(b) of the Resettlement of Displaced Persons (Land Acquisition) Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as "the Resettlement of Displaced Persons Act") within a period of eight weeks of the date of the order, and for this purpose, expeditiously liaison with the Ministry of Law for seeking the nomination of the Arbitrator from them.

3. The petitioner had filed the above writ petition claiming that the respondent nos. 1 to 4 had failed to appoint an Arbitrator under the Resettlement of Displaced Persons Act to determine the amount of the compensation payable to the petitioner and the respondent nos. 5 to 21 under the said Act.

4. In the Writ Petition, the petitioner had claimed that pursuant to the Order dated 19.04.1996, passed by the Division Bench of this Court in CWP No. 2685 of 1993, titled Shri Prakash Chand Aggarwal & Ors. v. Union of India, the respondent no. 3 had appointed one Sh. Shiv Prakash Sahai as an Arbitrator, who, however, tendered his resignation as an Arbitrator upon his retirement on 17.10.2000. Another writ petition, being WP(C) 4548 of 2012, Sh. Praveen Aggarwal & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors., was thereafter filed, seeking appointment of a substitute Arbitrator, whereon, this Court, by an Order dated 31.07.2012, directed that the petitioner must first address a communication calling upon the competent authority to appoint an Arbitrator, and only in case of inaction for a reasonable period of time after receipt of such communication, would the cause of action arise for the petitioner to file any petition in accordance with the law. The petitioner claims to have filed such representation and also a reminder thereto, however, having received no response, had filed the above petition praying for the following reliefs:

"a) appoint an Arbitrator, in the above matter to fix the compensation as per the direction dated: 19-04-1996, passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi at New Delhi, in a Writ Petition (Civil) No. 2685/1993, titled as "Shri. Prakash Chand Aggarwal Vs. Union of India", at the earliest.

b) direct the Ld. Arbitrator to pass the award under the Right to Fair Compensation & Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation & Resettlement Act."

5. As noted hereinabove, this Court disposed of the above writ petition by the Order dated 21.01.2020, with the following directions:

"In view of the above statement, it is evident that the notification of the Arbitrator has to be done by the respondent no. 22 though at the nomination of the Ministry of Law, Department of Legal Affairs.

In view of the above, it is directed that the respondent no. 22 shall notify the appointment of a new Arbitrator within a period of eight weeks from today. For this purpose the respondent no. 22 shall expeditiously liaison with the Ministry of Law for seeking the nomination of the Arbitrator from them.

The petition is disposed of in the above terms."

6. It now appears from the Review Petition that as the respondent no. 22 failed to appoint an Arbitrator in terms of the above Order, a Contempt Petition, being Cont. Cas(C) No. 417 of 2021, Mr Jagdish Prasad Aggarwal & Ors. v. Govt of NCT of Delhi (Through Secretary Smt. Rinku Dhugga) & Anr., was filed by the respondent no. 7 along with others. The said Contempt Petition was disposed of by an Order dated 16.07.2021 as, in the meantime, an Arbitrator came to be appointed by an Order dated 15.07.2021.

7. At this stage, the