- (1.) The question of law raised on behalf of the respondents assailing the legality and propriety of recommendation to award interest in the report submitted on 26/4/1994 by the learned Solicitor General of India appointed by this court on 4/12/1992 to determine compensation under the Requisitioning and Acquisition of Immovable Property Act, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') was little surprising as when a bench of this court, of which one of us was a member (R. M. Sahai, J. ) , after hearing the appeal for quite sometime, rather on number of days, requested the learned Attorney General of India, initially to look into the matter and report, but ultimately appointed the learned Solicitor General of India, with common consent of all parties and explicit understanding that the determination by him would not be challenged, it was thought that the curtain on the long-drawn and chequered history of litigation has been finally drawn.
(2.) Before considering the submission on merits, it may be mentioned that basic objection against the award by a retired Judge of the High court was that the power to appoint arbitrator under the Act vested in the central government alone. This objection might have been taken even against the report submitted by the learned Solicitor General of India and was in fact suggested, though feebly, by the learned counsel for the State of West Bengal but the learned Senior Counsel Dr Gauri Shankar who appeared for Respondent 3 and led the arguments in his usual characteristic fairnessbrushed aside the suggestion as the order had been passed by this court and the officer was no one else than the learned Solicitor General of India whose a impeccable integrity and fairness was given a word of praise by him. Yet the law must take its course even when a litigant like State insists and instructs the counsel to fight it out, presumably, because the enormous expenditure involved in such exercise is public money for which no one is accountable.
(3.) Reverting to the facts, the premises known as "white Wool" Godown, owned by the appellant situated at 11 Mile, Kalimpong comprising of a three-storeyed building with a total constructed area of about 53,000. 00 sq. ft. and open space of about 4.9 acres were requisitioned under the Act in July 1964. The possession was taken by the competent authority on 19-7-1964 and a sum of Rs. 834. 00 per month was determined as its rent. In 1967 the appellant filed an arbitration case before the District Judge of Darjeeling, under the provisions of Section 8 (l) (b) of the Act for determining the amount of compensation to be paid to the appellant. Since 1967 to 1980 the proceedings, before arbitrator, remained pending on account of transfer of the District Judges from time to time and the delay by the government in issuing necessary notifications in the appointment of fresh incumbents under Section 8 of the Act. In 1981 the appellant approached the High court for the appointment of an arbitrator and expeditious disposal of the arbitration case. In March 1981 the High court decided the writ petitions by accepting the second prayer of the appellant and directing the arbitrator to decide the dispute within six months. But the same position continued and the proceedings remained pending due to transfer of District Judges from 1981 to 1985. In September 1985 a consent order was passed directing the arbitrator to dispose of the case within 90 days. When no order was passed the appellant again approached the High court in May 1986 and the High court directed that the arbitrator was at liberty to proceed from the stage the proceedings had been left at by the previous arbitrator so that the proceedings may be decided expeditiously. Even though the High court had passed the order in May 1986 the arbitrator was appointed by the appropriate government in February 1987 who, too, was transferred in March 1987. Consequently the appellant again approached the High court and on 7/9/1987 it, in exercise of its writ jurisdiction, appointed a retired Judge of the Calcutta High court to act as an arbitrator in terms of the provisions of Section 8 (l) (b) of the Act. Before the arbitrator the Union of India and central Tibetan School's Administration, that is, the body for whom the premises had been requisitioned were also impleaded as Respondents 2 and 3 apart from the State of West Bengal. The award was made and signed on 11/8/1988. The sealed cover was opened by the District Judge on 17/8/1988. Notices were issued to the parties and on 24/9/1988 the District Judge passed an ex parte order in terms of the arbitration award. Since no payment was made by the respondents the appellant once again approached the High court in October 1988 for necessary directions to respondents to make immediate payment. Notice on this application was issued on 1 1/10/1988. In the meantime the respondents had filed an application under Order 9 Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure for setting aside of the ex parte order. The exparte decree making the award was set aside by the District Judge on 27/2/1989. The order was recalled as the arbitrator was appointed following the provisions of the Arbitration Act, 1940 but there being a special procedure provided under the Act it was incumbent on the court to have followed the procedure and directed the central government to appoint the arbitrator as under the Act the arbitrator could be appointed by the central government alone. It was further held that if the provisions of the Arbitration Act were applicable then it was mandatory on the court to issue notice under Section 14 (2 of the Arbitration Act, 1940. This order was challenged by the appellant in the High court by way of revision which was dismissed by a division bench on 23/6/1989. It was against this order that the appellant approached this court by way of this petition under Article 136 of the Constitution of India in which notice was issued on 24/11/1989. It was further directed that all further proceedings in connection with the award shall remain stayed. On 11/12/1989 the court further directed the State of West Bengal to deposit a sum of Rs. 4,00,000. 00 in the court within three weeks. The appeal was heard on number of days. Considering the delay which had taken place in the determination of compensation which was payable to the appellant it was considered expedient that instead of delaying the proceedings further it would be expedient if the matter was examined by the Attorney General of India. He agreed to. But later on he was not available. Consequently, on 4/12/1992 the following order was passed: "the Solicitor General fairly agrees that he will study the question with reference to the material on record as well as any other document which may be relevant to the matter and submit his report in respect of the compensation payable for the building in question. The Solicitor General further submits that he will submit his report within two months from the date on which the relevant papers are made available to him by the parties. The parties, shall make available to the Solicitor General all necessary papers within I week from today. " In pursuance of this order the learned Solicitor General examined the matter and submitted a report on 26/4/1994. According to this report the appellant is entitled to a compensation of Rs. 30,91,711. 00. The calculation has been done as under: PRINCIPAL AMOUNT________________ It has further been recommended that the respondents shall be liable to pay interest 8 1/3%. The amount of interest calculated thereon amounts to Rs. 29,45,032.86 up to 30/4/1994. The respondents in pursuance of direction by this court have deposited a sum of Rs. 30,18,000. 00 which has been withdrawn by the appellant.;