'Tareekh Pe Tareekh' Sought Despite Specific Directions: MP High Court Directs Centre To Release Compensation To Senior Citizens For Resuming Their Property

The Madhya Pradesh High Court, Indore Bench recently directed the Union of India to release the amount of compensation awarded to Petitioners, senior citizens, for their Bungalow that was resumed by the Ministry of Defence for their own purposes. The Court observed that the Union of India was dragging its feet in paying the amount to the Petitioners despite its specific directions to the executing court to dispose of the execution proceeding within 4 months. Justice Subodh Abhyankar was dealing with a writ petition filed by the Petitioners seeking directions of the Court to the Central Government to comply with the award passed by the Competent Arbitration Committee for resuming their property by the Ministry of Defence for their own purposes, and compensate them accordingly. The case of the Petitioners was that they were awarded compensation by the Arbitration Committee for their bungalow that was resumed by the Ministry of Defence but the same was not being executed despite the award being granted 10 years back. They asserted that despite their age, they were running pillar to post to get their compensation but to no anvil. The Petitioners further submitted that they had earlier filed a writ petition before the Court wherein the Court had directed the executing court to decide the pending execution case of the arbitration award within 4 months but the same was not complied with. The Centre submitted that the award passed by the Arbitration Committee was not in terms of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 and that the award was in the form of recommendation to the Ministry of Defence, which was rejected vide order passed by the authority concerned, 10 years later. They further argued that since the award was recommendatory in nature, the same could not be executed by the trial court. Considering the submissions of parties and documents on record, the Court opined that although the award used the term Anushansa i.e. recommendation, nothing was brought on record by the UoI that would state that the said award/recommendation was not binding in nature. The Court took strong exception to the order passed by the Ministry of Defence, whereby it rejected the award given by the Arbitration Committee after 10 years of its passing- On perusal of the aforesaid order it is apparent that on earlier occasion also the award passed by the Arbitration Committee has been directed to be complied with by this court. In such facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the considered opinion that merely if the award dated 30/11/2011 has been rejected or set aside by the respondents, on 08/03/2022 i.e., after 10 years, and taking note of the order dated 02/03/2020 passed by this Court in WP No.4117/2020, this Court has no hesitation to come to a conclusion that the respondents have not only failed in their duties to redress the grievance of senior citizens 74 years and 66 years old respectively, but have also failed to perform their duties with due diligence. The Court further observed that the Centre neither challenged the award or the proceedings before the executing court and that it was avoiding the implementation of award despite clear directions of the Court- It is also found the award dated 30/11/2011, passed by the Arbitration Committee has not been challenged by them in any court of law and even the execution proceedings have never been challenged on the ground that there is no award under the Arbitration Act and it was only a recommendation. What this court sees is only Tareekh pe Tareekh sought by the UOI to satisfy the award, especially when the case is pending since 01/04/2009 and it was specifically directed by this court vide order dated 02.03.2020 in W.P.No.4117/2020, to dispose of the proceedings within 4 months' time… The Court noted that even the executing court did not conclude the proceedings within 4 months, even after two years from the date of the Court's order directing it to do so, which was demonstrative of its failure 'to exercise the powers vested in it by law despite being armed with the aforesaid order' of the Court, which also had the effect of demeaning its own authority. With regard to the order passed by the Ministry of Defence, the Court held that the same was only an eye wash which was passed to get out of the unpleasant situation of paying the compensation to the Petitioner- So far as the order dated 08/03/2022 passed by the respondents rejecting the award passed by the Arbitration Committee on 30/11/2011 is concerned, in the considered opinion of this court it is only an eye wash and appears to have been passed only with a view to wriggle out of this unpleasant situation and is of no help to the respondent at this juncture of the lis. It is also beyond the faculties of this court as to why, after acquiring the property of a citizen in the year 2009, a democratic Government would ...

'Tareekh Pe Tareekh' Sought Despite Specific Directions: MP High Court Directs Centre To Release Compensation To Senior Citizens For Resuming Their Property

Zeeshan Thomas

Tags