Telangana High Court
The State Of Telangana vs K. Shanker Reddy on 20 January, 2021
Bench: Hima Kohli, B.Vijaysen Reddy
THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI
AND
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B. VIJAYSEN REDDY
WRIT APPEAL Nos.562 and 563 of 2020
COMMON JUDGMENT: (Per the Hon'ble the Chief Justice Hima Kohli)
1. At the outset, Mr. Namavarapu Rajeshwar Rao, learned
Assistant Solicitor General of India states that the Defence Estate
Officer, Telangana Circle, Secunderabad, has been erroneously
impleaded as appellant No.3. It is stated that the said appellant ought
to have been transposed as respondent No.6 in the Memo of Parties.
The amended Memo of Parties shall be filed within two days.
2. The appellants are aggrieved by a consent order dated
20.02.2020 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.27760 of
2017 filed by the respondents No.1 to 4 praying inter alia for issuance
of a writ of mandamus directing them to appoint an Arbitrator to
decide the claims raised by the writ petitioners under Section 8(1) of
the Requisitioning and Acquisition of Immovable Properties Act,
1952 (for short 'the Act'), in respect of their collective share in the
acquired land to the extent of 7/16th out of Ac.19.19 gts (41,238
square yards) that was acquired by the State for the Defence
Department.
3. In the impugned order, the learned Single Judge has recorded
the concession given by both sides to the effect that the issue involved
in the writ petition is squarely covered by a common order dated
22.03.2011 passed in W.Ps.No.22128 of 2010 and 4060 of 2011,
whereby Sri Justice Vaman Rao, Retired Judge was appointed as an
Arbitrator to decide the claims of the petitioners therein under Section
8(1) of the Act. In view of the aforesaid concession, the learned
Single Judge has allowed the writ petition filed by the respondents
No.1 to 4 and appointed Sri Justice B. Prakash Rao, Retired Judge as
an Arbitrator to decide the claims raised by the respondents No.1 to 4
under Section 8(1) of the Act.
4. It is stated by learned Special Government Pleader appearing on
behalf of the appellants that aggrieved by the impugned order dated
20.02.2020, a review petition was filed before the learned Single
Judge which was dismissed vide order dated 25.09.2020 on the
ground that there was no error apparent on the face of the record. It
was also observed that the contentions raised by the appellants can be
agitated before the learned Arbitrator appointed by the court along
with other legal issues for appropriate orders.
5. Mr. Pratap Narayan Sanghi, learned counsel for the respondents
No.1 to 4 states that in terms of the consent order dated 20.02.2020
the Arbitrator had entered reference on 01.06.2020 and a claim
petition has been filed by his clients. The matter is now posted before
the learned Arbitrator on 30.01.2021 to await a reply of the appellants
to the claim petition. He states that once the arbitration proceedings
have been set into motion and that too on the basis of a consent order,
the present appeals ought not to be entertained. He further states that
the role of the appellants in terms of the Act is limited to appointment
of an Arbitrator in circumstances where no agreement can be arrived
at between the parties with regard to the amount of compensation to
be paid to the owner of the subject land that is under compulsory
acquisition. It is stated that if at all there can be a grievance, it could
have been raised by the Defence Department and not the State
Government.
6. We are inclined to agree with the submission made by the
learned counsel for the respondents No.1 to 4. The role of the State
Government is limited to appointing an Arbitrator in terms of Section
8 of the Act and no more. Once an Arbitrator has been appointed and
that too on the basis of a consent order and he has entered upon
reference and proceeded with the matter, we see no reason to entertain
the present appeals. It is however made clear that all the pleas that
have been taken in the present appeals would be available to the
appellant for being taken in the reply to the claim petition proposed to
be filed before the learned Arbitrator.
7. The appeals are dismissed as meritless along with the pending
applications, if any.
______________________________
HIMA KOHLI, CJ
______________________________
B. VIJAYSEN REDDY, J
20.01.2021
vs/jsu
