Appointment of district Court as arbitrator u/s 19(2) of Defend of India Act.

A preliminary point is raised by the learned counsel for the respondent that no revision can be entertained by this Court against the order of the arbitrator appointed under section 19(2) of the Defence of India Act on the ground that the arbitrator is appointed to act merely as a persona designata and therefore not as a Court subordinate to the High Court within the meaning of section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code. In reply to this it is argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the arbitrator in this case is chosen to act not in his private capacity but in his capacity as a District Judge and therefore a Court coming within the purview of section 115, Civil Procedure Code.

In order to understand this preliminary objection it is necessary to set out a few material facts. Certain lands in the village of Palavanthangal, Chingleput district, belonging to the petitioner were acquired by the Government under the provisions of the Defence of India Act and the Requisitioned Land (Continuance of Powers) Act, 1947. As the claimants were not agreeable to accept the amount of compensation offered by the Collector, Sri P.N. Ramaswami, I.C.S., who happened to be the District Judge, Chingleput, then was appointed arbitrator in G.O.No. 223 (Revenue Department), dated 28th January, 1949, in pursuance of the provisions of section 19 of the Defence of India Act. A preliminary objection was raised on behalf of the petitioners before the arbitrator that the constitution of the arbitration was incompetent there being no valid acquisition within the meaning of section 5 of the Requisitioned Land (Continuance of Powers) Act, 1947 and as such he could not proceed with the enquiry as regards the amount of compensation to be paid to the claimants. The learned arbitrator overruled the objection observing that

“on the limited records filed” he was “unable to hold that there was no acquisition or that the constitution of the arbitration was incompetent”

and that even assuming that there was no such valid acquisition the matter had to be agitated in the appropriate forum by appropriate proceedings. Against this order the present Revision Petition is filed.

The question for consideration is whether the arbitrator appointed under the provisions of the Defence of India Act is selected to act as a persona designata, that is to say, in his private capacity or to act as a Court. I will have to examine this question with reference to the relevant provisions of the Defence of India Act and the rules made thereunder and in the light of the decided cases.

Section 19(1) of the Defence of India Act enacts that:

“Where under section 19-A or under any rule made under this Act, any action is taken of the nature described in sub-section (2) of section 299 of the Government of India Act, 1935, there shall be paid compensation, the amount of which shall be determined in the manner, and in accordance with the principles, hereinafter set out, that is to say:

(a) where the amount of compensation can be fixed by agreement, it shall be paid in accordance with such agreement.

(b) Where no such agreement can be reached, the Central Government shall appoint as arbitrator a person qualified under sub-section (3) of section 220 of the abovementioned Act for appointment as a Judge of a High Court.

*****

(e) The arbitrator in making his award shall have regard to-(i) the provisions of sub-section (1) of section 23 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, so far as the same can be made applicable; and (ii) whether the acquisition is of a permanent or temporary character.

(f) An appeal shall lie to the High Court against an award of an arbitrator except in cases where the amount thereof does not exceed an amount prescribed in this behalf by rule made by the Central Government.

(g) Save as provided in this section and in any rules made thereunder, nothing in any law for the time being in force shall apply to arbitrations under this section.”

There is also a provision in section 19 e