Calcutta High Court
Aditya Almal And Anr vs The First Land Acquisition Collector on 1 February, 2024
Author: Suvra Ghosh
Bench: Suvra Ghosh
OD - 1
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURISDICTION
ORIGINAL SIDE
WPO/1531/2023
IA NO: GA/1/2023
ADITYA ALMAL AND ANR.
VS
THE FIRST LAND ACQUISITION COLLECTOR, KOLKATA AND ANR.
BEFORE :
THE HON'BLE JUSTICE SUVRA GHOSH
DATE : 1ST FEBRUARY,2024
Appearance
Mr. Arijit Bardhan, Adv.
Mr. Soumyajit Mishra, Adv.
Mr. Rishav Dutta Gupta, Adv.
...for petitioners
Mr. Pantu Deb Roy, A.G.P.
Mr. T.M. siddique, A.G.P.
Mr. Subrata Guha Biswas, Adv.
...for respondent
Mr. Alak Kr. Ghosh, Adv.
Mr. Swapan Kr. Debnath, Adv.
...for K.M.C.
Ms. Noelle Banerjee, Adv.
...for State.
GA/1/2023
The Court :- Heard learned counsels for the parties.
The applicant seeks to be added as a party respondent to the
writ petition on the ground that since there was an initial appointment
of an arbitrator who decided the amount of compensation to be paid to
the petitioner, subsequent appointment of arbitrator is not tenable in
law. Also, in the event the amount of compensation is enhanced in
arbitration, the applicant who is the beneficiary has to bear the
additional burden.
Learned counsel for the State respondents does not raise any
objection to the application.
Vehemently opposing the application, learned counsel for the
petitioners places reliance on the authority in W.B.State Warehousing
Corpn v.Indrapuri Studio (P) Ltd. reported in (2010) 14 SCC 285 and
submits that the beneficiary has no right whatsoever in the matter of
appointment of an arbitrator, reference of a case to the arbitrator or
participating in the arbitration proceedings.
The relevant portion of the judgment is set out hereinbelow :
13) "At the commencement of the proceedings before the
arbitrator, the State Government and the person entitled to
receive compensation are required to state their respective
opinions as to the fair amount of compensation [Section
11(1)(d)]. Thereafter, the arbitrator has to determine the
amount of compensation keeping in view the matters
enumerated in clauses (a), (b) and (c) of Section 12. Once
the award is made and signed, the arbitrator has to inform
the parties to the reference by sending a notice in writing
and also send copies of the award to the Collector and the
person or persons interested (Rule 13).
14) What is most significant to note is that neither at the stage
of fixing the amount of compensation by agreement nor at
the time of appointment of arbitrator, the State Government
is required to consult any person including beneficiary of
the requisition.The only person with whom the State
Government is required to negotiate the amount of
compensation is the one whose premises are requisitioned.
An application for reference of the case to the arbitrator can
be made only by a person who was a party to the
unsuccessful exercise undertaken for fixing the amount of
compensation by agreement. If the State Government
nominates a person having expert knowledge as to the
nature of the requisitioned premises to assist the arbitrator,
a corresponding right is available to the person whose
premises are requisitioned to nominate an assessor.
15) In terms of Section 11(1)(d), only the State Government and
the person to be compensated have the right to state their
respective opinions as to the fair amount of compensation.
The person to whom the requisitioned premises are
transferred has no role in any one of these matters. The use
of expression "the person to be compensated" in clauses (c)
and (d) of Section 11(1) clinches the issue. A person like the
appellant certainly does not fall in the category of the
person to be compensated.
16) As a sequel to the above, it must be held that a person for
whose benefit the premises are requisitioned or to whom
the requisitioned premises are transferred does not have
any locus to participate in the process of determination of
compensation by agreement, or in the matter of
appointment of an arbitrator or reference of case to the
arbitrator or nomination of an assessor. A person like the
appellant can neither submit opinion under Section 11(1)(d)
as to the fair amount of compensation nor the arbitrator is
obliged to give notice and opportunity of hearing to such
person under Section 11(1)(e) read with Sections 12(a),(b) or
(c). Therefore, such person is neither entitled to copy of the
award as of right nor can he challenge the award by filing
an appeal under Section 11(1)(f) and the High Court did not
commit any error by declaring that the appeal filed by the
appellant was not maintainable."
In view of the above, this Court is inclined to hold that the
applicant cannot be considered to be a necessary or proper party to
the writ petition. The applicant, being a beneficiary, has no locus
standi to participate in the writ petition seeking appointment of an
arbitrator in terms of section 11 of the Act of 1947. The application,
being devoid of merits is liable to be rejected.
Consequently, GA/1/2023 is rejected.
There shall, however, be no order as to costs.
Urgent certified website copies of this order, if applied for, be
supplied to the parties expeditiously on compliance with the usual
formalities.
WPO/1531/2023
Heard learned counsels for the parties.
List the matter under the same heading on 22nd February, 2024.
(SUVRA GHOSH, J.)
GH.
