- (1.) This appeal arises from a case which had a chequered career. The appellant addressed a letter on 8-2-1968 to the Deputy Commissioner, Udhampur, State of Jammu and Kashmir enquiring about the availability of land for extension of Air Field, Udhampur. The Additional Secretary, Government of Jammu and Kashmir, wrote a letter to the Ministry of Defence that 2027 kanals and 18 marlas of land was available for acquisition at an approximate cost of Rs 12,62,655.32 paise subject to normal rise or decrease in that amount, which may occur on the determination of the market value. The Government had agreed and accorded sanction on 27-7-1970 for asum of Rs 13,34,056 for acquisition of the land. Thereafter the Government of Jammu and Kashmir issued notification under Section 21 on 16-12-1971 requisitioning 2134 kanals of the said land situated in Village and Tehsil Udhampur. A notification under Section 7 of the Jammu and Kashmir Requisitioning and Acquisition of Immovable Property Act, 1968 (J and K Act 35 of 1968 (for short 'the Act') was published in SRO No. 843 dated 16-12-1972. Thereafter exercising the power under Section 16 of the Act the Deputy Commissioner, Udhampur was appointed as a competent authority under the Act. He determined market value Rs 5100 per kanal for Class 'a' lands in all the villages, Rs 4500 per kanal for Class 'b' lands in all the villages and Rs 4800 per kanal for Class 'c' in all the villages. In addition he awarded 15% solatium and interest at 4% from 16-12-1972 to 25-6-1973, the date on which possession was taken. The compensation had come to about Rs 1,21,00,000. A letter was issued to the subordinate officers for their approval. Since the appellants had not approved the determination of the market value at the said rate, they sought a reference under Section 8 of the Act. The District Judge was appointed as an Arbitrator under Section 8 (1) (a). At the beginning of the enquiry proceeding, held by the District Judge to determine the market value, the respondents filed an objection before the arbitrator contending that the award passed by the competent authority was an offer and it was acceptable to them. Since the requisition and acquisition had been made by the competent authority for and on behalf of the appellants they had no right to object to the award made by the competent authority. Therefore, the enquiry to be held by the District Judge as Arbitrator was without jurisdiction. But when the enquiry of the Arbitrator proceeded, without deciding the respondents' objections, they filed a writ petition in 1975. The learned Single Judge in his order dated 22-2-1979 held that the award passed by the competent authority being an offer, when the respondents had accepted that offer, it must be deemed to be one made under Rule 9 read with Section 8 (1) (a) of the Act. Therefore, the appellants had no right to object to the offer made by the competent authority. Accordingly he directed the competent authority to enter into an agreement with the respondents in Form 'k'. Dissatisfied with that order the appellants filed LPA No. 35 of 1979. The Division Bench, by its order dated 27-4-1983, while upholding the view of the Single Judge that the award of the competent authority was an offer and that the appellants were bound by the offer, set aside the direction given to enter into an agreement in Form 'k', instead directed the District Judge to decide the objections filed by the appellants. Thereafter, the District Judge overruled the objections and held that the respondents had accepted the offer. Though no direct finding was recorded that the offer became enforceable in consequence of rejecting the reference under Section 8 (1) (b) , it must be concluded that the appellants were bound by the offer made by the competent authority and it would be one enforceable under Section 8 (1) (a) of the Act. The appellants filed WP No. 295 of 1984 and the Division Bench by its order dated 8-5-1985 while affirming the view of the Single Judge and the Division Bench in the earlierproceedings held that the order passed by the District Judge is valid and the locus standi of the appellants to file the writ petition was doubted accepting the stand taken by the respondents that the appellants were not the persons interested under Section 2 (d) of the Act and dismissed the writ petition. Thus this appeal by special leave.
(2.) Section 2 (b) defines 'competent authority' to mean any person or authority appointed by the Government by notification published in the Government Gazette to perform the functions of the competent authority under the Act for such area as may be specified in the notification. Section 16 of the Act empowers the Government to delegate to the authorised officer the exercise of its powers and duties under the Act, subject to such circumstances and under such conditions, if any, as may be specified in the notification. In pursuance thereof, the competent authority was appointed to exercise the powers of the Government and to perform its duties under the Act. Section 21 of the Act provides the mode and procedure to requisition the immovable property situated in the State of Jammu and Kashmir "required by the Union Government in connection with the purpose of the Union" and when the requisition in this behalf is received by the State Government it shall notify that such property be requisitioned. Exercising the power under Section 21 followed by a notification issued under Section 7 (l) (a) , State Government acquired the said property for extension of the Air Field at Udhampur. Section 8 provides the procedure to determine the compensation, which reads thus: "8.Principles and methods of determining compensation. (1 Where any property is requisitioned or acquired under this Act, there shall be given compensation which shall be determined in the manner and in accordance with the principles hereinafter set out, that is to say: (a) Where the compensation can be fixed by agreement, it shall be given in accordance with such agreement; (b) Where no such agreement can be reached, the Government shall appoint as arbitrator a person, who is a District Judge or Additional District Judge;" Sub-section (3 of the Act provides: "the compensation for the acquisition of any property under Section 7, in the absence of an agreement, shall be (a) the price which the requisitioned property would have fetched in the open market, if it had remained in the same condition as it was at the time of requisitioning and been sold on the date of acquisition, or (b) twice the price which the requisitioned property would have fetched in the open market if it had been sold on the date of requisition, whichever is less. "
(3.) The Government framed the rules, namely Requisitioning and Acquisition of Immovable Property Rules, 1969 which came into effect from5-1-1970 (for short 'the Rules'). Rule 9 is the relevant rule concerned in this case and reads thus: "9.Compensation. (1 An authority to whom the powers of the Government have been delegated shall, as far as may be associate with itself the local officer of the Government concerned with the property in fixing compensation under clause (a) of sub-section (1 of Section 8, and obtain the approval of the Government in the Administrative Department concerned (or) any officer authorised by the Government in this behalf. * * * (3 The competent authority shall, as soon as may be practicable after the making of a requisitioning order or the service of a notice of acquisition, communicate to each person interested an offer of what in the opinion of the competent authority, is a fair amount of compensation payable to such person in respect of the property requisitioned or acquired. * * * (5 (I) Every person interested to whom an offer is made under sub-rule (3 shall, within fifteen days of the receipt of the offer, communicate in writing to the competent authority his acceptance or otherwise of the offer. If he accepts the offer, the competent authority shall enter into an agreement with him on behalf of the Government in Form 'k'. (ii) In the following circumstances, the competent authority may at his discretion make to an eligible claimant 'on-account' payment up to 80 per cent of the amount which, in his opinion is likely to be assessed as compensation or recurring compensation, as the case may be: (a) when there is likely to be delay in assessing compensation; (b) where the competent authority has made an assessment but there is delay in reaching an agreement though there is a reasonable prospect of agreement being reached; or (c) where it is clear that an agreement cannot be reached. (iii) If the competent authority makes an 'on-account' payment under clause (ii) , he shall enter into an agreement with the. person to whom payment is made on behalf of the Government in Form 'l' with such modification as the nature of the case may require. (6 If any person to whom an offer is made under sub-rule (3 does not accept the offer or does not within fifteen days of the receipt of the offer communicate in writing to the competent authority his acceptance or otherwise of the offer the competent authority shall, as soon as may be, submit to the Government a report setting forth the full facts of the case. Particularly as regards the nature and extent of disagreement between himself on the one hand and the said person on the other hand and he shall also forward with the report all connected papers. The competent authority shall at the same time deposit in Court the amount offered by him to the said person under sub-rule (3. " 742 A reading of Section 8 (1) (a) and Rule 9 would clearly indicate that the competent authority appointed under Section 16 is enjoined to associate himself with the local officer of the Government concerned, i. e. , when acquired for the Union Government, its officer, in fixing the compensation. The contention of Mr Bhim Singh learned counsel for the respondents that the officer of the Government concerned would necessarily mean only the officer of the State Government who is empowered to act under the Act; the officers of the appellant. Union of India have no right or authority to associate with the competent authority, to determine the compensation, is devoid of substance. The phrase "local officers of the Government concerned with the property" in Rule 9 (1 read with Sections 8 and 21 brings out the distinction. Therefore, the delegated competent authority, when is enjoined to determine compensation in association with local officer of the Government concerned when it comes to Union of India, must associate himself with the local officers of the Central Government and obtain the approval of the Department of Central Government or the approval of any officer of the Central Government as may have been authorised.;