Chittatosh Mookerji, J. - (1.) Tho appellants of F.A. No. 106 of 1960, being, aggrieved by the award of Sri K.N. Bhattacharya, Arbitrator, in an arbitration cate under section 8 of the Requisitioning and Acquisition of Immovable Property Act, 1952 have preferred the said appeal. The State of West Bengal has also preferred F.A. No. 46 of 1960 against a part of the said award of the learned Arbitrator.
(2.) On 20th November, 1943 the then Provincial Government on behalf of the Central Government, had requisitioned a large number of plots belonging to late Gopal Krishna Pal Deb Mohanta Trust State of which the appellants of F.A. No, 106 of 1960 claim to be the present trustees. On 3rd March, 1949 the said plots were permanently acquired under section 5 of the Requisitioning and (Continuance of Powers) Act, 1947 (Act 17 of 1947). The Section 24 of the Requisitioning and Acquisition of Immovable Property Act, 1952, repealed the said Act 17 of 1947 and inter alia, provided that anything done or any action taken under the said Act 17 of 1947 in so far as the same was not inconsistent with the provision of the Act 30 of 1952 shall be deemed to have been done or taken in the exercise of the powers conferred by the Requisitioning and Acquisition of Immovable Property Act, 1952, as if the said Act was in force on the Jay of which such thing was done or action was taken.
(3.) As no agreement about the amount of compensation payable could be reached, Shri K.N. Bhattacharya, a retired District Judge, was appointed as the Arbitrator. The said learned Arbitrator purported to determine the amount of compensation payable for the acquisition of this said property in accordance with the provisions of sub-section (3) of section 8 of the Requisitioning and Acquisition of Immovable Property Act, 1952 The learned Arbitrator has over-ruled the contention of the claimants that clause (b) of said sub-section (3) of section 8 of the Act was arbitrary, unconstitutional, void, because the said provision offended the provisions of Article 31(2) of the Constitution of India. But the said view of the learned Arbitrator is contrary to the decision of the Supreme Court in Union of India v. Kamalabai Harjivandas Parekh and Others, A.I.R. 1968 SC 377. The Supreme Court upheld the decision of the Bombay High Court that clause (b) including the words "whichever is less" of subsection (3) of section 8 of the Act 30 of 1952 were ultra vires the Article 31 of the Constitution and as such void. The clause (b) did not provide the just equivalent of the land on the date of acquisition. On 17th September, 1967 the Supreme Counsel had delivered their said judgment in Kamalobal Harjlvandji Parekh's (supra).;