Case Note & Summary
This appeal arose from a dispute concerning the appointment of an arbitrator under Section 8(b) of the Requisitioning and Acquisition of Immovable Property Act, 1952. The appellants, Inder Singh and others, were among 22 persons whose land was acquired under the Act. The competent authority, the Land Acquisition Collector, passed an award determining compensation at varied rates: Rs.5,000/-, Rs.4,200/-, and Rs.2,001/- in respect of three different belts of land. Thereafter, the 22 persons, including the appellants, agreed to receive the compensation and executed 'K' Form Agreement as per Rule 9(5)(i) of the Rules made under the Act, and accepted the compensation without protest. The appellants later sought appointment of an arbitrator under Section 8(b) of the Act, contending that there was no agreement on the compensation determined by the Land Acquisition Officer. The writ petition filed by the appellants before the High Court was dismissed on two grounds: delay and merits. Aggrieved, the appellants filed a special leave petition before the Supreme Court, which granted leave. The central legal issue before the Supreme Court was whether the appellants, having accepted compensation under Form K without protest, were entitled to appointment of an arbitrator under Section 8(b) of the Act. Section 8(b) provides for appointment of an arbitrator when there is no agreement between the parties regarding the compensation determined by the Land Acquisition Officer. Rule 9(5)(i) of the Rules framed under the Act deals with the manner of acceptance of compensation and execution of Form K agreement. The appellants contended that they were entitled to an arbitrator because there was no agreement on compensation. The respondent Union of India contended that the appellants had voluntarily accepted the compensation under Form K without protest, and therefore, under Rule 9(5)(i), they were precluded from seeking arbitration. The Supreme Court examined the factual background and noted that the appellants were among 22 persons who had agreed to receive the compensation and had executed the Form K Agreement under Rule 9(5)(i) and accepted the compensation without any protest. The Court observed that Section 8(b) requires appointment of an arbitrator only when there is no agreement between the parties on the compensation determined by the Land Acquisition Officer. In the present case, the acceptance of compensation under Form K without protest constituted an agreement on compensation. Consequently, Rule 9(5)(i) applied to the appellants, and they were not entitled to appointment of an arbitrator under Section 8(b) of the Act. The Supreme Court, therefore, dismissed the appeal without costs. The decision establishes that once a claimant accepts compensation under the prescribed Form K without protest under the relevant rules, such acceptance amounts to an agreement on compensation, thereby barring the subsequent invocation of the arbitration mechanism under Section 8(b) of the Requisitioning and Acquisition of Immovable Property Act, 1952.
Headnote
A) Land Acquisition - Appointment of Arbitrator - Section 8(b) of Requisitioning and Acquisition of Immovable Property Act, 1952 and Rule 9(5)(i) of Rules framed thereunder - Acceptance of compensation under Form K without protest bars appointment of arbitrator - The Land Acquisition Collector passed an award determining compensation at varied rates; 22 persons including the appellants executed Form K Agreement under Rule 9(5)(i) and accepted compensation without protest; Section 8(b) provides for appointment of arbitrator only when there is no agreement on compensation - Held that having accepted compensation under Form K without protest, Rule 9(5)(i) applied and appellants were not entitled to appointment of arbitrator under Section 8(b); appeal dismissed (Para 1).
Issue of Consideration
Whether appellants who accepted compensation under Form K without protest are entitled to appointment of an arbitrator under Section 8(b) of the Requisitioning and Acquisition of Immovable Property Act, 1952.
Final Decision
Appeal dismissed. No costs. Appellants not entitled to appointment of arbitrator under Section 8(b) because they accepted compensation under Form K without protest and Rule 9(5)(i) applied.
Law Points
- Acceptance of compensation under Form K without protest under Rule 9(5)(i) of the Rules framed under the Requisitioning and Acquisition of Immovable Property Act
- 1952 bars appointment of arbitrator under Section 8(b)
- Section 8(b) applies only when there is no agreement on compensation determined by Land Acquisition Officer
- execution of Form K Agreement and acceptance of compensation without protest constitutes agreement on compensation
