K.K.GUPTA, J. - (1.) LAND measuring 6 kanal and 16 marla comprised in khasra No. 375, 13 -K 13 -M in khasra No. 381 belonging to the petitioner was acquired by Deputy Commissioner, Collector, Rajouri, respondent No. 2 under Requisition and Acquisition of Immovable Property Act, (for short Act hereafter), at the request of Ministry of Defence. Later on this respondent No. 2 is sued award on March 18, 1987 awarding Rs. 23,650/ - per kanal as compensation. The amount offered by the Collector was not acceptable to the petitioner and as such District and Sessions Judge, Rajouri, respondent No. 3 was appointed as arbitrator under clause B of sub -sec. I read with Sub -Sec. 4 of Sec. 8 of the Act by the State of Jammu and Kashmir, respondent No. 4, under their notification dated January 5, 1988. Respondent No. 2 thereupon requested respondent No. 3 to enter upon the reference and decide the claim of the petitioner. Respondent No. 3 arbitrator under order dated 7.5.1988 has issued notice to the Union of India, respondent No. 1, declaring it as necessary party in the proceedings. The petitioner in this petition has challenged the abovesaid order of respondent No. 3 as unconstitutional void and against law on the ground that whenever any immovable property situate in the State is required by the Union of India, the Union Government makes a requisition for the same on which State of Jammu and Kashmir notifies for requisition of the said property as provided under S. 21 of the Act and in case of any dispute that is considered as a dispute between the owner, whose property is acquired, and the Collector and the State and Union of India is alien to those arbitration proceedings.
(2.) COUNTER to the petition has not been filed by the respondents despite so many opportunities granted for it and ultimately their right to file counter was closed.
(3.) I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. In this case facts have not been disputed. Deputy Commissioner, Collector, Rajouri acquired 19 -K 16 -M of land belonging to the petitioner. Dispute has arisen regarding the amount of compensation awarded by the Collector to the petitioner and the same matter has thus been referred for arbitration to District and Sessions Judge, Rajouri under notification issued by the Government of Jammu and Kashmir on 5 -1 -1988. The arbitrator has issued notice to Union of India declaring it as necessary party. Such point came for consideration of this court in Zamindars of air field Udhampur and others v. Military Estates Officer and other's and same was decided by this court on 22.2.1979 with the following observations : "After the Notification under S. 21(1) of the Act is issued, the Union Government which is only the indenting Government goes out of the picture and comes back into the picture only to reimburse the State Government in respect of all the expenditures incurred by the State Government in this behalf". Since no approval was required to be obtained from Union of India to the amount of compensation fixed by the Competent Authority, the non -acceptance of the amount by respondent No. 1 was of no consequence at all. This view finds support from a perusal of Rule 9(5) and Rule 9(6) also which envisage the reference to arbitration only in the event of divergence between Competent Authority on the one hand and the persons required to be compensated on the other. No reference is required to be made to the arbitrator in case the Union of India does not accept the amount fixed by the Competent Authority. It is thus clear that after the competent authority has assessed the compensation, the indenting Government has no locus standi to question it and reference to arbitration could only be made in the event of disagreement between the persons from whom the land had been acquired or requisition on the one hand and the competent authority which had fixed amount of compensation on the other, as they are only two parties contemplated under law. In another such like matter before the Division Bench of this court in Writ Petition No. 294 of 1984 it was observed that the court need not dilate much on the point as the same stood concluded between the parties by the above referred judgment.;