M/S DEHA ASSAM TEA CO. (P) LTD. Vs. M. M. RAHMAN AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS application under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India is directed against an order of the District Judge, Jorhat, who was appointed Arbitrator under Clause (b) of sub -section (1) of Section 8 of the Requisitioning and Acquisition of Immovable Property Act, 1952 as amended in 1970, hereinafter referred to as "the R.A.P. Act."

(2.) THE notification was made by the State Government on 30 -3 -71 appointing the Arbitrator. The claimant is the petitioner in this case, namely M/s. Deha Assam Tea Co. (P) Ltd. A preliminary objection was raised by the learned Government Pleader before the Arbitrator that he had no jurisdiction to proceed in the matter in view of the fact that the property had been earlier requisitioned under the provisions of the Defence of India Act and, therefore, the appointment of the Arbitrator under the R.A.P. Act was void under the law. Some other issues were also framed including limitation and res judicata. The learned Judge took the first four issues in a preliminary hearing and decided against the petitioner holding that reference to him was incompetent as it has not been made under the provisions of the Defence of India Act. No one appears to oppose this application. We have, therefore, heard only Mr. P. Choudhuri, the learned Counsel for the petitioner, who was fair enough to take us through all the material papers in the original records. The first question that falls for decision is whether the Arbitrator was correct in holding that the reference as made is incompetent under the law as it has not been made in exercise of the powers under the Defence of India Act. It is clear that the Defence of India Act ceased to be in force with effect from 10 -1 -68. The Requisitioning and Acquisition of Immovable Property (Amendment) Act. 1968 (Act XXXI of 1968) received the assent of the President of India on 9 -8 -68 and was published in the Gazette of India Extraordinary on 12 -8 -68. By this amendment, amongst other sections, a new Section 25 was inserted in the old Act. That section may be quoted:

(3.) IN the result the application is allowed. Since no one appears for the other side, there will be no order as to costs.