Find a Lawyer

Civil Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. 26-D of 1966, decided on 3rd May 1966.

(On appeal from the judgment and order of the High Court of East Pakistan, Dacca, dated 29th November 1965 in Writ Petition No. 336 of 1965.)

S. 7 (aaa) (i)-Requiring bodies not "person interested" and do not come into picture at time of assessment of compensation Section 7 (aaa) (i) does not apply to such bodies, and they are not entitled to apply to Government asking for appointment of an arbitrator in matter of assessment.

Asrarul Hussain, Advocate Supreme Court (W. Mirza, Advocate Supreme Court with him), instructed by Q. A. Rahman Attorney for Petitioner.

Abdur Rahman Chowdhury, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by A. W. Mian, Senior Attorney for Respondents.

Date of hearing: 3rd May 1966.

-The only question raised in this petition for special leave to appeal is: Whether the petitioner is an "interested person" within the meaning of section 7 (aaa) (i) of the East Bengal (Emergency) Requisition of Property Act, 1948 and it arises under the following circumstances:

At the instance of the petitioner, the Pakistan Oxygen Limited, the Deputy Commissioner, Khulna requisitioned 5 acres of land for the purpose of establishment of an industrial undertaking for the manufacture of oxygen and dissolved acetylene. The petitioner-Company thereafter deposited a sum of Rs. 1,19,101.39 on the basis of a provisional assessment of the valuation of the land and the constructions thereon. On the final valuation of the said land and structures the petitioner was directed to deposit an additional sum of Rs. 87,000. On receipt of the said intimation they wrote to the Government that the question of assessment may be referred to an Arbitrator under section 7 (aaa) of the East Bengal (Emergency) Requisition of Property Act, 1948. On 22nd July 1965 the department concerned wrote to them that the "Requiring Bodies are not entitled to apply for appointment of an Arbitrator under section 7 (aaa) of the above-noted Act in the matter of an estimate of the L. A. Cost prepared by the D. C. under the above Act". The petitioner then filed a petition in the High Court under Article 93 of the Constitution for cancellation of the above letter dated 22nd July 1965, and for referring the matter to an Arbitrator in terms of the Act. The learned Judges while dismissing the petition observed:

"The question of payment of compensation has to be resolved between the Provincial Government or its representa tive the Deputy Commissioner and the persons who are entitled to compensation. The requiring body does not come into the picture at that stage although some provisions of the Act lay down that payment in advance may be taken from a Requiring Body when the acquisition is with a view to hand over the property to that body."

Mr. Asrarul Hussain, the learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the requiring body is a person interested' within the meaning of section 7 (aaa) of the Act and is, therefore, entitled to ask for a reference of the question of assessment to an Arbitrator.

We are unable to accept the above contention. Section 7 lays down the principles for assessment of the compensation payable to the person whose property is requisitioned or acquired under the Act. Sub-clause (a) says that where the amount of compensation can be fixed by agreement it shall be paid in accordance with such agreement.

Sub-clause (aa) provides that if such agreement could not be reached then the Deputy Commissioner would assess the compensation.

Then comes sub-clause (aaa) (i) which is in these terms

"any person interested who has not accepted the assessment may by written application to the Provincial Government require that the matter may be referred to an Arbitrator."

After assessment of the compensation the Deputy Commis sioner decides under section 7-A disputes, if any, with regard to the apportionment of the compensation. Section 7-B provides for payment of assessed compensation, 7-C deals with recovery of money from allottee of requisitioned property. 7-D prescribes the mode of transfer of the acquired property to a company. From the above it is abundantly clear that the requiring bodies do not come into the picture at the time of assessment of the compensation and section 7 (aaa) therefore cannot apply to them.

In this view of the matter we see no ground for interference with the order of the High Court and accordingly dismiss this petition.

A. H. Petition dismissed.

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.