Dubey, J. -- 1. This is an appeal under Section 11 of the Requisitioning and Acquisition of Immovable Property Act, 1952 (No. XXX of 1952) (for short 'the Central Act') against award of compensation, mesne profits and interest awarded vide award dated 19.9.94 made under Section 8 of the Act by learned Arbitrator Mr. Justice G.C. Jain (Retd.) in the matter of arbitration between Shri G.C. Sanghi and others and Union of India.

2. Facts giving rise to this appeal are thus : Respondents own a building Municipal No. 105 (old No. 13) situate in Napier Town, Jabalpur of which carpet area is 4274 suqare feet and plot area is 53970 sq. ft. The said building was requisitioned on 30th January, 1950 by the Deputy Commissioner, Jabalpur under Section 3 of the Central Provinces and Berar Accommodation (Requisition) Act, 1948 (Act No. LXIII of 1948) read with Section 3 of the Central Provinces and Berar Accommodation (Requisition) (Amendment) Act, 1949 (Act No. XXXIX of 1949) (for short the State Act) for the purpose of locating the office of the Delhi Special Police Establishment at Jabalpur. The Provincial Government offered Rs. 225/- per month as compensation which was not agreed by the respondents/owner. Consequently, as provided under Section 4(1)(ii) of the State Act the Provincial Government appointed as arbitrator the District Judge, Jabalpur to fix the fair amount of compensation. The District Judge awarded fair amount of compensation at Rs. 250/- per month under Section 4(1)(iv) of the State Act, vide award dated 18.11.50, which then was enhanced to Rs. 300/- per month vide order dated 2.1.1953. Out of the total area an open piece of land measuring 19903 sq. ft. was released from requisition on 17.6.1977. Thus, the open area measuring about 29763 sq. ft. of the accommodation so requisitioned consisted of front lawn, back lawn, lawn underneath, front and back verandah with open court-yard. The Central Act came into force with effect from 15.3.1987 but the possession of the property was delivered on 17.8.1988. The Central Government fixed the amount of compensation of Rs. 1875/- per month (Rs. 1500+25%) per month from 73.1985.

3. The respondents did not agree to the compensation so fixed for the period from 7.3.80 to 6.3.85 and for the period 7.3.85 onwards, therefore, claimed enhanced compensation, and on elapse of requisition till the delivery of possession mesne profits. The Central Government did not appoint Arbitrator under Section 8(1)(b) of the Central Act. The respondents filed a civil writ petition No. 1139 of 1989 before the Delhi High Court, for appointment of the Arbitrator for assessment of compensation for damages and mesne profits payable to the respondents. By order dated 9.1.90 the Delhi High Court appointed Mr. G.C. Jain (Retired Judge of the Delhi High Court) Arbitrator.

4. The respondents filed their claim before the learned Arbitrator seeking an award for Rs. 6,77,970/- with interest at the rate of 18% per annum from the date amount became due till payment detailised at page 6 of the award. Appellant resisted the claim on various grounds and contended that the monthly compensation determined by the competent officer under the relevant statute is proper and reopening of the same is totally unwarranted, unjustified and unconscionable. Learned Arbitrator framed eight issues arising from the pleadings of the parties. After negativing the contention that the provisions of Central Act were not applicable to the building in question as the property was requisitioned under the State Act and the award dated November 2, 1950 passed by the District Judge and enhanced in appeal by order dated 2.1.53 continued to remain in force till the premises were vacated. The Arbitrator held that the respondents were entitled to the revision of recurring payment from 7.3.1980 to 6.3.1985 and then for the period from 7.3.85 onwards. The respondents were not entitled to get back any excess amount paid as a result of the revision of compe