1961 (2) TMI 77 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Competency of Satinder Singh to object to the compensation amount.
2. Validity of the arbitrator's appointment.
3. Nature of the property and the title of Amrao Singh.
4. Apportionment of the compensation amount.
5. Claim for interest on the compensation amount.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Competency of Satinder Singh to object to the compensation amount:
The arbitrator and the High Court considered whether Satinder Singh had the locus standi to contest the compensation amount. The arbitrator rejected Amrao Singh's contention that his son had no standing in the matter and held that Satinder Singh was entitled to contest the compensation and claim a share in its distribution. The High Court upheld this view, confirming that Satinder Singh, as the next heir, had a legitimate interest in the property and was thus competent to object to the compensation amount.

2. Validity of the arbitrator's appointment:
The appointment of the arbitrator was challenged on the grounds that an agreement had been reached between the State and the Court of Wards regarding the compensation amount. The arbitrator dismissed this objection, and the High Court affirmed that the arbitrator's appointment was valid and that he had the jurisdiction to conduct the proceedings.

3. Nature of the property and the title of Amrao Singh:
The arbitrator and the High Court both found that the property in question was part of the Cis Sutlej States, where the holder had only a life interest and could not alienate the corpus. This finding was based on historical records and authoritative publications, which indicated that the property was non-transferable and exempt from attachment as political pensions. The High Court also noted that the property was ancestral and that Amrao Singh had no right to alienate it without legal necessity.

4. Apportionment of the compensation amount:
The arbitrator initially apportioned the compensation with 3/4ths to Amrao Singh and 1/4th to Satinder Singh for three villages, while the entire amount for the fourth village was to be invested in government securities with a charge in favor of Sardarani Gurdial Kaur. The High Court modified this apportionment, directing that the amount should be divided half and half between Amrao Singh and Satinder Singh. The Supreme Court upheld this modification, emphasizing the need to safeguard the reversionary interest and considering the reckless conduct of Amrao Singh.

5. Claim for interest on the compensation amount:
The High Court initially rejected the claim for interest, interpreting the relevant Act of 1948 as not providing for it. However, the Supreme Court disagreed, holding that the general principle of awarding interest in lieu of possession applied, as the claimants were deprived of their property and its income. The Supreme Court directed that the compensation amount should carry interest at 4% per annum from the date of acquisition to the date of payment. The interest on the compensation for the Dhirpur land was to be paid to Sardarani Gurdial Kaur, while the interest for the other three villages was to be divided equally between Satinder Singh and Amrao Singh.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court allowed the appeals in part, modifying the High Court's decree to direct a half-and-half division of the compensation amount between Satinder Singh and Amrao Singh, with interest at 4% per annum. The appeals by Amrao Singh were dismissed, and the costs were to be borne accordingly.