M.KARPAGA VINAYAGAM, C.J. - (1.) THE petitioner Nos. 1 to 20, who belong to four villages, on their behalf and on behalf of 753 land -owners of the said four villages, have filed this writ petition, praying for quashing of the notification issued on 18.11.1993, by the State Government cancelling the earlier notification dated 5.6.1993, issued on the basis of the letter of the Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi, dated 30.10.1993 and to restore the notification dated 5.6.1393 issued for appointment of the Arbitrator in respect of all the land -losers under Section 8(1)(b) of the Requisition and Acquisition of Immovable Property Act.
(2.) THE short facts are as follows: The State of Bihar, now Jharkhand, on the requisition of Defence Department, Union of India, acquired a vast track of land in four villages, namely, Sugnu, Garhi, Lal Ganj and Khatanga in the year 1970 for military purposes. The total land measuring 1846.99 acres in the aforesaid four villages had been acquired under Section 7 of the Requisition and Acquisition of Immovable Property Act on 30.5.1970. Thereupon, the compensation lad been paid by the Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi, to the land -losers. Since the same was insufficient and very low, some of them approached the authority to appoint Arbitrator to determine the correct valuation of the land acquired. Despite that, the authority did not feel inclined to appoint Arbitrator. Hence those land -losers of the four villages in the year 1991 filed four writ petitions for the said relief in the High Court. Accordingly, the High Court, by the orders dated 12.9.1991, 11 10.1991, 31.10.1991 and 11.10.1991, directed the State Government to appoint Arbitrator under Section 8(1)(b) of the aforesaid Act within three months and determine the Quantum of compensation on the basis of the market value relating to the land of the land -losers -petitioners. Accordingly, notification was issued on 18. 12.1992 by the State Government appointing Sri R.C.P. Sinha, Retired Judge of Patna High Court, as an Arbitrator. Noticing that notification dated 18.12.1992 was only concerned with the land -losers -petitioners of those writ petitions, the Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi, sent a letter dated 3.3.1993, requesting the Government to issue another notification for inclusion of the other 753 cases relating to all the land - losers of the aforesaid four villages. Accordingly, notification dated 5.6.1993 war issued modifying the earlier notification dated 18.12.1992 and including 753 cases of land -losers of the aforesaid four villages for determining the rate of the land, which had been acquired. Challenging the said notification, Central Government filed writ petition before the High Court. Hence, the Deputy Commissioner age in sent a letter dated 30.10.1993 requesting for cancellation of the notification dated 5.6.1993, indicating that 5.6.1993 notification referring all the 7 53 cases to the Arbitrator may not be proper since 18.12.1992 notification referring the writ petitioners of the aforesaid four writ petitions alone would be proper as it was at the instance of the High Court order. On the basis of this letter dated 30.10.1993, State Government issued notification dated 18.11.1993, cancelling the notification dated 5.6.1993 and restoring the notification dated 18.12.1992. Challenging the said notification dated 18.11.1993, the petitioners, 20 in number on their behalf and on behalf of 753 land -losers, have filed this writ petition stating that the amount of compensation paid was not sufficient and therefore, Arbitrator has to determine the market rates of the land belonged to them also. The main points urged by the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners are as follows: (i) Cancellation of the notification dated 5.6.1993 by another notification dated 18.11.1993 was made on wrong submission of facts and law by the Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi, in his letter dated 30.10.1993. (ii) Once the reference under Section 8(1)(b) of the aforesaid Act was sent and the same has been acted upon and accordingly the arbitration proceeding was validly started, the State of Bihar cannot cancel the notification dated 5.6.1993. (iii) When there is no agreement in Form K of the Requisition and Acquisition of Immovable Property Rules, 1953, made between the land -losers and - the competent authority, appointment of Arbitrator is mandatory to fix the market rate. (iv) When the High Court allowed four writ petitions on 12.9.1991 by directing the State Government to appoint Arbitrator to determine compensation under Section 8(1)(b) of the aforesaid Act, the petitioners, who are similarly situated with that of those petitioners of the said four writ petitions, are also entitled to get the same relief to meet the ends of justice by allowing the Arbitrator to deal with the cases of the petitioners to fix the rate of compensation of their lands.
(3.) IN reply to the above points, both the earned counsel appearing for the State as well as Central Government have filed their respective objections to those submissions. They are as follows: (I) The petitioners, being the land -losers, were paid compensation earlier. They have not filed any application for appointment of Arbitrator to decide the quantum of compensation either before the authorities or before the Court. As a matter of fact, they accepted the amount of the award without any protest. Therefore, the question of appointment of Arbitrator for their cases does not arise. (II) The notification dated 18.12.1992 was issued in compliance of the order of the High Court to appoint Arbitrator in the matter of the petitioner of that four writ petitions on the ground that they have received the compensation amount only under protest and immediately thereafter within 15 days of the notification of the award, they requested the competent authority to appoint the Arbitrator. So the appointment of the Arbitrator in pursuance of the order of the High Court through notification dated 18.12.1992 is perfectly valid. (III) The petitioners have received their share of compensation for their land long years back without any protest. The petitioners have not produced any document to show that they received the compensation under protest and they asked for appointment of Arbitrator. Therefore, the petitioners cannot be equated with that of the petitioners of that four writ petitions. (IV) Since the irregularities were found in the notification dated 5.6.1993 as to the number of persons for arbitration, the Deputy Commissioner requested the State Government to modify the notification dated 5.6.1993, which was not in consonance with the order of the High Court. Accordingly, the State Government, rectifying the mistake found in the notification dated 5.6.1993, issued the notification dated 18.11.1993 cancelling the notification dated 5.6.1993 and testoring the earlier notification dated 18.12.1992 which was issued in pursuance of the High Court order. (V) The petitioners have received the compensation of the acquisition in the year 1970 itself. There was no protest. When they came to know that the State Government issued the notification dated 5.6.1993, the petitioners have now filed this writ petition after about 23 years praying for compensation at market rate through the Arbitrator. (VI) When the assessment had already been made on the acquisition of the land of the land -losers by the competent authority and on the basis of that assessment, money had been disbursed and received by the petitioners without any demur or protest, they cannot be allowed to claim belatedly. Evan if no agreement in Form K had been executed, it is the land -loser who had to approach the competent authority raising objection to the amount of compensation and to make request for appointment of Arbitrator in view of rule 9(5) of the aforesaid Rules, 1953. Admittedly this was not done. (VII) It is a matter of record that notices were issued to the respective land -losers prior to the acquisition. Some of these land -owners made their objection to the competent authority and most of them made no objection. The objection made by them were duly considered and amount had been fixed and disbursed. Thereafter, the notifications under Section 7(1) of R.A.I.P. Act, 1952, for acquisition of the land in question were published on different dates in the year 1970 -71 Since then land were vested absolutely with the Central Government.;