REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO.3865 OF 2006

West Bengal State Warehousing Corporation

… Appellant

Versus

M/s. Indrapuri Studio Pvt. Ltd. and another

… Respondents

J U D G M E N T

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

2

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

3

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 (1995) 2 SCC

326.

8.

Shri A.K. Ganguli, learned senior