2010 (10) TMI 1059 - SC - Indian Laws

Whether the Division Bench of Calcutta High Court erred in declining to entertain the appeal filed by the appellant under Section 11(1)(f) of the West Bengal Premises Requisition and Control Act, 1947 (for short, the Act ) against award dated 1.1.2003 passed by the Arbitrator under Section 11(1)(e)?

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the appellant can be considered a "person interested" under Section 2(d) of the West Bengal Premises Requisition and Control Act, 1947.
2. Whether the appellant has the right to challenge the Arbitrator's award under Section 11(1)(f) of the Act.

Detailed Analysis:

Issue 1: Definition of "Person Interested"
The primary issue revolves around whether the appellant qualifies as a "person interested" under Section 2(d) of the West Bengal Premises Requisition and Control Act, 1947. The Act defines "persons interested" as "any person claiming an interest in compensation payable on account of requisition of any premises under this Act."

The appellant argued that it falls within this definition because it is adversely affected by the award and may have to reimburse the compensation amount. However, the respondent countered that the appellant does not meet this definition because the premises were merely transferred to it after requisition, and it has no direct claim to the compensation payable to the original owner.

The court analyzed Sections 2(d), 3(1), 6, 11, 12, and 13 of the Act and relevant rules. It concluded that the appellant does not qualify as a "person interested" because the Act and rules only recognize the original owner of the requisitioned premises as the party entitled to compensation. The appellant, being a beneficiary of the requisition, does not have any locus standi in the compensation determination process.

Issue 2: Right to Challenge the Arbitrator's Award
The appellant sought to challenge the Arbitrator's award under Section 11(1)(f) of the Act, which allows an appeal to the High Court against an Arbitrator's award. The Division Bench of the High Court dismissed the appellant's appeal, stating that the appellant is not a "person interested" and thus has no right to challenge the award.

The court reiterated that only the State Government and the person to be compensated (i.e., the original owner) have the right to participate in arbitration proceedings and appeal against the award. The court emphasized that the appellant, as a transferee of the requisitioned premises, does not have any role in these matters and cannot be considered a "person interested" for the purposes of filing an appeal.

The court also distinguished the case from U.P. Awas Evam Vikas Parishad v. Gyan Devi, noting that the definition of "person interested" in the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, is inclusive, whereas the definition in the West Bengal Act is exhaustive. Hence, the broader interpretation applied in Gyan Devi does not apply here.

Conclusion:
The court dismissed the appeal, holding that the appellant does not fall within the definition of "person interested" under Section 2(d) of the Act and therefore has no right to challenge the Arbitrator's award under Section 11(1)(f). The High Court's decision to dismiss the appellant's appeal was affirmed.