Bose, J. - (1.) THIS is an application under Article 226 of the Constitution for an appropriate writ directing the respondents Nos. 1 and 2 to withdraw or cancel an order of revocation of appointment of an arbitrator dated 24-11-1951 and for direction upon the said respondents to forbear from giving effect to that order.
(2.) THE petitioner carries on business of production and exploitation of films and for the purpose of such business he has his building, studio laboratory situated at Tollygunge in the suburbs of Calcutta. In the year 1942, the building, studio, laboratory and the garages belonging to the petitioner were requisitioned by the Government under the Defence of India Act, 1939. As no agreement could be reached between the petitioner and the Government as to the compensation payable in respect of the requisition, a reference was made by the Collector under the provisions of Section 19, Defence of India Act by an order made on 20-6-1944 and this reference was registered as Land Acquisition Case No. 41/44. It appears that thereafter, arbitrators were purported to have been appointed by the Government from time to time, but none of the arbitrators entered upon the reference. By an order made on 27-2-1950, one Mr. J. C. Majumdar who was the Additional District Judge of Alipore was appointed as arbitrator by the Government of West Bengal in its Department of Land Revenue. Mr. Majumdar entered upon the reference and commenced hearing of the arbitration case. The petitioner filed his statement of claim before the arbitrator and claimed a sum of about seven lakhs of rupees by way of compensation in respect of the said acquisition. Various documents and books of account, were disclosed and placed before Mr. Majumdar in the course of the arbitration proceedings and evidence of witnesses was taken by the arbitrator for several days. The petitioner also called an export witness to prove the valuation of the properties in question and this witness was examined and cross-examined for about two days and it appears that the arbitrator himself put questions to the witness. It also appears that during the arbitration proceedings, local inspection was necessary and so all the parties including the arbitrator inspected the requisitioned premises on or about 31-1-1951.
(3.) IT is alleged in the petition that since the inspection, considerable repairs and improvements and alterations have been made to the premises in question and the character of the property has been considerably altered as a result of the same. After the said inspection the hearing was further continued on 7-2-1951 and 8-2-1951. On the last mentioned date, an objection was taken for the first time by the lawyer appearing for the Government that the reference to the arbitrator was not sufficiently comprehensive and so all the disputes relating to the question of compensation could not be entertained by him.;