1968 SCMR 275 (PLP)

FAZLE-AKBAR, J.

This order will dispose of Civil Petitions for Special Leave to Appeals Nos. 157-D and 161-D of 1967. The facts giving rise to these two petitions are as follows. The petitioners filed a suit (T. S. No. 15 of 1963) in the Court of Subordinate Judge, Mymensingh, for recovery of possession of the suit land upon declaration of their title thereto. Their case was that the defendants after taking forcible possession of the suit land shifted there the Tarail High School from its old site and constructed school buildings and also converted a part of the land as playground. On 31-8-64, the said suit was decreed on contest. By a notification dated 15th Cctober 1964, issued under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act the said land was acquired by the Government. On 20-12-64, the school authorities filed an appeal in the High Court against the judgment and decree of the Subordinate Judge. As the petitioners' objection against the above acquisition was overruled by the acquiring authority, they filed a writ peth ion in the High Court, challenging legality of the acquisition of the disputed land. Both the appeal and the writ petition were heard together. During hearing, parties filed a joint petition for recording a compromise on the following terms:- "(a) The parties agree that Mr. Asaduzzaman Khan, Mr. A. W. Choudhury and Mr. Abdul Matin Khan Choudhury Advocates, shall be the Arbitrators and a majority decision of them shall be binding on the parties. (b) The Arbitrators shall have to go the locality, namely, Tarail, where the land in question is situated, and are to find out how much of the land in the new site (i.e. 3'76 acres of land in suit or the subject-matter of acquisition) is necessary for the Tarail Model Secondary High School (Under Bi-lateral Development Scheme) for the School buildings, Officer-cum Library Buildings, Science Laboratories, Chemistry Laborato ries, Boarding Houses, Gymnasium, Playground, Tank or swimming pool, etc, to be housed in a compact area, if possible. In arriving at a finding in this behalf of both old and new site may be taken into consideration. (c) The Arbitrators are to determine a fair valuation of the land in question (referred to above) as required by the School, with reference to the price prevailing in or about September 1964, in its original character or quality. (d) If the plaintiffs-petitioners desire to get the lands belonging to Tarail High School at the old site for themselves, the Arbitrators shall have to assess the valuation of the said land as well which amount shall be deducted from the total value for the plaintiff's land and plaintiffs shall get only the balance amount.

5. After the submission of Report by the Arbitrators and the implementation thereof, the above matters will be disposed of accordingly." The Court accordingly passed the following order:- "Having in view the subject-matter in dispute we think it proper and desirable to allow their prayer in terms of the prayers (a), (b), (c) and (d) in paragraph 3 of the petition. The Arbitrators are to file the award within six weeks as prayed for. The School Authorities are to bear the costs of the Arbitrators. The parties are permitted to take back the documents filed in this connection in the appeal and refile them along with the award made by the Arbitrators. The appeal and the Petition No. 131 of 1965 be put up for disposal as soon as the award is received." On-27-5-66, the Arbitrators filed their Award in Court. The petitioners raised various objections to the Award. Their main objections were that the Arbitrators had travelled beyond the scope of the reference and that they had not determined a fair valuation of the land in question. The learned Judges of the High Court were, however, unable to accept the objections and therefore passed a judgment in terms of the award and directed that the said Award should form part of the decree of the Court. The petitioners, therefore, seek special leave to appeal against the above judgment and decree of the High Court. The learned counsel for the petitioners has failed to satisfy us, that the Award would come within the mischief of any of the clauses in section 30 of the Arbitration Act. It will, therefore, suffice to say that we see no reason to doubt that the Arbitrators came to an honest determination upon the matter referred to them. Hence, we see no ground for interference and dismiss these petitions. Petition dismissed.