REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO.3865 OF 2006

West Bengal State Warehousing Corporation … Appellant

Versus

M/s. Indrapuri Studio Pvt. Ltd. and another … Respondents

J  U  D  G  M  E  N  T

G.S. Singhvi, J.

1. This appeal is directed against the judgment of the Division Bench of  

Calcutta High Court whereby it declined 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).

2. The premises belonging to respondent No.1 (covered area measuring  

11,900 sq. feet and open space measuring 10,620 sq. feet) situated at N.S.C.

Bose Road, Tollygunge, Calcutta was requisitioned by the State Government  

under Section 3 of the Act.   After taking possession of the requisitioned  

premises, the State Government transferred the same to the appellant.

3. Since the amount of compensation payable to respondent No.1 in lieu  

of the requisition of its property could not be fixed by agreement, the State  

Government  appointed  an  Arbitrator  under  Section  11(1)(b)  of  the  Act.  

Though, the appellant had no role to play in the matter of determination of  

compensation  payable  to  respondent  No.1,  on  being  asked  by  Ist  Land  

Acquisition Collector, Calcutta, the appellant got itself impleaded as party in  

the arbitration proceedings.   

4. By  an  award  dated  1.1.2003,  the  Arbitrator  held  that  the  State  

Government  is  liable  to  pay  as  compensation  Rs.1,60,21,126/-  for  the  

covered area and Rs.54,82,076/- for the open space with interest at the rate  

of 18% per annum.   

5. During  the  pendency  of  the  arbitration  proceedings,  the  appellant  

represented to the State Government for appointment of a new Arbitrator by  

asserting  that  a  retired  judicial  officer  cannot  be  appointed  to  act  as  an  

Arbitrator.   Thereupon,  Assistant  Secretary,  Land  &  Land  Reforms  

Department, who might not have been aware of the factum of passing of  

2

award  by  the  Arbitrator  on  1.1.2003,  sent  letter  dated  10.1.2003  to  the  

Managing  Director  of  the  appellant  that  the  judicial  department  of  the  

Government  had  already  been  approached  for  appointment  of  a  new  

Arbitrator.  However, no further action appears to have been taken by the  

State Government for appointment of new Arbitrator.    

6. After  obtaining a  copy of  the  award,  the  appellant  filed an  appeal  

under Section 11(1)(f), which was dismissed by the Division Bench of the  

High Court by observing  that the appellant cannot be treated as a person  

interested  in  the  compensation  payable  on  account  of  requisition  of  the  

premises.  The Division Bench referred to Section 6 of the Act and held that  

a  person  acquiring  interest  in  the  property  does  not  have  the  right  to  

participate in the arbitration proceedings or file an appeal against the award.

7. Shri  S.B.  Upadhyay,  learned  senior  counsel  appearing  for  the  

appellant  argued  that  the  Division  Bench  of  the  High  Court  committed  

serious error by refusing to entertain the appeal ignoring that the appellant  

falls within the definition of the expression `person interested’ contained in  

Section 2(d) of the Act.  Learned senior counsel submitted that any person  

who is or is likely to be adversely affected by the award of the Arbitrator  

would fall within the ambit of that expression and such person is entitled to  

challenge  the  award  of  the  Arbitrator  by  filing  an  appeal  under  Section  

3

11(1)(f).  Learned senior counsel further submitted that the appellant cannot  

be denied the right to challenge the award because it may have to reimburse  

the amount payable to respondent No.1 in terms of the award.  In support of  

his arguments, the learned senior counsel relied upon the judgment of this  

Court in  U.P. Awas Evam Vikas Parishad v. Gyan Devi (1995) 2 SCC  

326.

8. Shri A.K. Ganguli, learned senior counsel appearing for respondent  

No.1 argued that the High Court did not commit any error by non suiting the  

appellant  because  it  is  not  covered  by  the  definition  of  the  expression  

`person  interested’.   Learned  senior  counsel  submitted  that  transfer  of  

possession of the requisitioned premises to the appellant does not make the  

appellant  a  person  interested  in  the  amount  of  compensation  payable  to  

respondent No.1 and it has no right to challenge the award of the Arbitrator.  

Shri Ganguli distinguished the judgment of this Court in U.P. Awas Evam  

Vikas Parishad v. Gyan Devi (supra) by pointing out that definition of the  

expression  `person  interested’  contained  in  Section  3(b)  of  the  Land  

Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, `the 1894 Act’) is inclusive whereas the  

definition  of  the  said  expression contained  in  Section 2(d)  of  the  Act  is  

exhaustive.

4

9. We have considered the respective submissions.  Sections 2(d), 3(1),  

6, 11, 12 and 13 of the Act and Rules 7, 8, 9, 10, 13 and 15 of the Rules,  

which have bearing on the decision of this appeal read as under:

The W.B. Premises Requisition and Control Act, 1947

2. Definitions.— In  this  Act,  unless  there  is  anything  repugnant in the subject or context,—

(d) “persons  interested”  means  any  person  claiming  an  interest in compensation payable on account of requisition of  any premises under this Act;

3. Power to requisition.— (1) Whenever it  appears to  the State Government that any premises in any locality are  needed or are likely to be needed for any public purpose, it  may,  by order  in  writing,  requisition such premises  either  with or without any or all of the furniture, if any, in such  premises:

Provided that no premises exclusively used for the purpose  of religious worship shall be requisitioned under this section.

6.  Disposal of premises after requisition.— When any  premises  have been requisitioned under sub-section (1)  of  section 3, the State Government may use or deal with them,  for such public purpose and in such manner as may appear to  it to be expedient.

11. Procedure  for  fixing  compensation.— (1) Where  any premises are requisitioned under this Act, there shall be  paid to all  persons interested compensation the amount of  which shall be determined in the manner, and in accordance  with the principles hereinafter set out, namely:--    (a) where the amount of  compensation  can be fixed by  

agreement,  it  shall  be paid in accordance with such  agreement;

5

(b)where  no  such  agreement  can  be  reached,  the  State  Government  shall  appoint  a  District  Judge  or  an  Additional District Judge as arbitrator;

(c) the  State  Government  may,  in  any  particular  case,  nominate a person having expert knowledge as to the  nature  of  the  premises  requisitioned,  to  assist  the  arbitrator,  and  where  such  nomination  is  made,  the  person  to  be  compensated  may  also  nominate  an  assessor for the said purpose;

(d) at  the commencement  of the proceedings before the  arbitrator, the State Government and the person to be  compensated  shall  state  what  in  their  respective  opinions is a fair amount of compensation;

(e) the  Arbitrator  shall,  in  determining  the  amount  of  compensation  to  be  awarded  to  the  landlord,  have  regard to the matters referred to in clauses (a), (b) and  (c) of section 12;

(f) an appeal shall lie to the High Court against an award  of an arbitrator;

12. Matters to be considered in fixing compensation by  agreement.— In determining the amount of compensation  which may be fixed by agreement under clause (a) of sub- section  (1)  of  section  11,  the  Collector  shall  take  into  consideration—

(a) the  rent  payable  in  respect  of  the  premises  including  where the premises are requisitioned with any furniture  therein, the charges for the use of such furniture;

(b) if, in consequence of the requisition of the premises, the  person interested is compelled to change his residence or  place  of  business  or  to  remove  his  furniture  or  other  articles  to  any other  place,  the  reasonable  expenses  (if  any) incidental to such change or removal and

(c) the damage or loss of income (if any) sustained by the  person interested between the date of service of the order  under sub-section (1) or under clause (b) of sub-section  

6

(3) of section 3, as the case may be, on such person and  the  date  when  the  Collector  takes  possession  of  the  premises.

13.  Persons with whom agreement is to be entered into. — The Collector shall enquire into the respective rights of  all  persons  interested  in  the  premises  and  shall  decide  whether the compensation shall be paid to any such person  periodically  or  in  lump.   The  compensation is  to  be paid  periodically the Collector shall, having regard to the terms  and conditions under which the premises may have been let  out  to  a  tenant,  also  decide  whether  the  agreement  for  payment of compensation referred to in section 11 shall be  entered into with such tenant or with the immediate landlord  of such tenant.

Rules:

R.7. The appointment of an Arbitrator under Clause (b) of  Sub-Section (1)  of Section 11 shall  be made by the State  Government  by  a  notification  in  the  Calcutta  Gazette  to  exercise jurisdiction over any specified area or in respect of  any specified case or cases.

R.8. Where  the  amount  of  compensation  payable  under  Section  11  cannot  be  fixed  by  agreement  any  person  interested  may  make  an  application  to  the  Collector  for  referring the case to arbitration with the necessary written  statement  of  his  claim.  The Collector  shall  on receipt  of  such application refer the case with all relevant papers to the  Arbitrator and give an intimation of such reference having  been made to the person or persons interested and the State  Government.  Where  no  such  application  is  made  by  any  person  interested  within  a  reasonable  time,  the  Collector  himself  shall  refer  the  case  to  the  Arbitrator  and give  an  intimation of such reference having been made to the person  or persons interested and to the State Government.

R.9. Where  the  State  Government  nominates  a  person  having expert knowledge as to the nature of the requisitioned  premises to assist the Arbitrator the State Government shall  inform the Arbitrator of such nomination.  On receipt of the  intimation, the Arbitrator shall inform the person or persons  

7

interested about the nomination with a view to enabling such  person or persons to nominate an Assessor under clause (c)  of  sub-section  (1)  of  Section  11.   The  nomination  of  an  Assessor shall be made within fifteen days of receipt of the  information.

R.10. The person to be nominated under clause 1(c) of sub- section (1) of Section 11 by the State Government and the  Assessor to be nominated under the said clause by the person  or persons interested such assistance may be given such fees  as may be fixed by the State Government in each case.

R.13. When the Arbitrator has made his award, he shall sign  it and shall give notice in writing of the making and signing  thereof to the parties to the reference.  He shall also send to  the Collector as well as to the person or persons interested a  copy of the award with a note appended thereto setting forth  the  grounds  on  which  the  award  is  based  and  shall  also  forward  to  the  Collector  the  awards  in  original  with  the  records of the proceedings.

R.15. Any appeal against an award of the Arbitrator shall be  preferred within six weeks from the date of receipt by the  Collector or by the party by whom the appeal is preferred of  the copy of the award sent under Rule 13.

Provided that any such appeal may be admitted even if  preferred  after  the  said  period  of  six  weeks  when  the  appellant  satisfies  the  High  Court  that  he  had  sufficient  cause for not preferring the appeal within the said period.

10. An analysis of the above reproduced provisions shows that in terms of  

Section 3,  the  State  Government can requisition any premises  needed or  

likely to be needed for any public purpose.  Section 6 provides for disposal  

of premises after the same are requisitioned under Section 3(1).  Under that  

section, the State Government has been bestowed with the power to use or  

8

deal  with  the  requisitioned  premises  for  the  specified  public  purpose.  

Section  11(1)  postulates  payment  of  compensation  for  the  requisitioned  

premises.   The amount of  compensation  is  required to be determined by  

either of the two modes prescribed therein.  If the parties voluntarily enter  

into an agreement on the quantum of compensation, the amount is to be paid  

in accordance with such agreement.  If there is a tenant in the requisitioned  

premises  then in  terms of  Section 13 the  Collector  is  required  to  decide  

whether the agreement for payment of compensation shall be entered into  

with the tenant or with the immediate landlord of such tenant.  In case the  

parties cannot agree on the quantum of compensation, the State Government  

is required to appoint a District Judge or an Additional District Judge as an  

Arbitrator and notify the same in the Official Gazette [Section 11(1)(b) and  

Rule 7].  Rule 8 provides that where the amount of compensation payable  

under Section 11 cannot be fixed by agreement, any person interested can  

make an application to the Collector  for referring the case to arbitration.  

Thereupon, the Collector is obliged to refer the case to the Arbitrator and  

give  an  intimation  to  the  person  or  persons  interested  and  the  State  

Government.  Where no such application is made within a reasonable time,  

the  Collector  can  suo moto  refer  the  case  to  the  Arbitrator  and give the  

required  intimation.   In  terms  of  clause  (c)  of  Section  11(1),  the  State  

Government is empowered to nominate a person having expert knowledge  

about the nature of the premises requisitioned to assist the Arbitrator.  In that  

9

event, a corresponding right is available to the person to be compensated to  

nominate an assessor.  At the commencement of the proceedings before the  

Arbitrator,  the  State  Government  and  the  person  entitled  to  receive  

compensation are required to state their respective opinions as to the fair  

amount of compensation [Section 11(1)(d)].    Thereafter, the Arbitrator has  

to  determine  the  amount  of  compensation  keeping  in  view  the  matters  

enumerated in clauses (a), (b) and (c) of Section 12.  Once the award is made  

and  signed,  the  Arbitrator  has  to  inform the  parties  to  the  reference  by  

sending a notice in writing and also send copies of the award to the Collector  

and the person or persons interested (Rule 13).   

11. What is most significant to note is that neither at the stage of fixing  

the amount of compensation by agreement nor at the time of appointment of  

Arbitrator, the State Government is required to consult any person including  

beneficiary  of  the  requisition.   The  only  person  with  whom  the  State  

Government is required to negotiate the amount of compensation is the one  

whose premises are requisitioned.  An application for reference of the case  

to  the Arbitrator  can be made only by a person who was a  party  to the  

unsuccessful exercise undertaken for fixing the amount of compensation by  

agreement.   If  the  State  Government  nominates  a  person  having  expert  

knowledge  as  to  the  nature  of  the  requisitioned  premises  to  assist  the  

Arbitrator, a corresponding right is available to the person whose premises  

10

are requisitioned to nominate an assessor.  In terms of Section 11(1)(d), only  

the State Government and the person to be compensated have the right to  

state their respective opinions as to the fair amount of compensation.  The  

person to whom the requisitioned premises are transferred has no role in any  

one of these matters.  The use of expression ‘the person to be compensated’  

in clauses (c) and (d) of Section 11(1) clinches the issue.  A person like the  

appellant  certainly  does  not  fall  in  the  category  of  the  person  to  be  

compensated.   

12. As a sequel to the above,  it  must  be held that  a person for whose  

benefit the premises are requisitioned or to whom the requisitioned premises  

are  transferred  does  not  have  any  locus  to  participate  in  the  process  of  

determination  of  compensation  by  agreement,  or  in  the  matter  of  

appointment  of  an  Arbitrator  or  reference  of  case  to  the  Arbitrator  or  

nomination of an assessor.  A person like the appellant can neither submit  

opinion under Section 11(1)(d) as to the fair amount of compensation nor the  

Arbitrator is obliged to give notice and opportunity of hearing to such person  

under Section 11(1)(e) read with Section 12(a), (b) or (c).  Therefore, such  

person  is  neither  entitled  to  copy  of  the  award  as  of  right  nor  he  can  

challenge the award by filing an appeal under Section 11(1)(f) and the High  

Court did not commit any error by declaring that the appeal filed by the  

appellant was not maintainable.   

11

13. Section 3(b) of the 1894 Act, which also contains definition of the  

expression `person interested’ and which was interpreted by the Constitution  

Bench in U.P. Awas Evam Vikas Parishad v. Gyan Devi (supra), reads as  

under:

“3(b).   the  expression  “person  interested”  includes  all  persons claiming an interest in compensation to be made on  account  of  the  acquisition  of  land  under  this  Act;  and  a  person  shall  be  deemed  to  be  interested  in  land  if  he  is  interested in an easement affecting the land.”

14. A  comparative  study  of  the  two  definitions  of  expression  ‘person  

interested’,  one contained in  Section 3(b)  of  the 1894 Act  and the  other  

contained in Section 2(d) of the Act shows that while the first definition is  

inclusive,  the  second  definition  is  exhaustive.  The  difference  between  

exhaustive and inclusive definitions has been explained in P. Kasilingam v.  

P.S.G. College of  Technology (1995) Supp 2 SCC 348 in the following  

words:

“A particular expression is often defined by the Legislature  by  using  the  word  ‘means’  or  the  word  ‘includes’.  Sometimes  the words ‘means  and includes’  are  used.  The  use of the word ‘means’ indicates that “definition is a hard- and-fast definition, and no other meaning can be assigned to  the expression than is put down in definition”. (See : Gough  v. Gough;  Punjab  Land  Development  and  Reclamation  Corpn. Ltd. v. Presiding Officer, Labour Court.) The word  ‘includes’  when  used,  enlarges  the  meaning  of  the  expression defined so as to comprehend not only such things  

12

as  they  signify  according  to  their  natural  import  but  also  those  things  which  the  clause  declares  that  they  shall  include. The words “means and includes”, on the other hand,  indicate “an exhaustive explanation of the meaning which,  for the purposes of the Act, must invariably be attached to  these  words  or  expressions”.  (See:  Dilworth v.  Commissioner of Stamps (Lord Watson);  Mahalakshmi Oil  Mills v. State  of  A.P. The  use  of  the  words  “means  and  includes”  in  Rule  2(b)  would,  therefore,  suggest  that  the  definition of ‘college’ is intended to be exhaustive and not  extensive and would cover only the educational institutions  falling  in  the  categories  specified  in  Rule  2(b)  and  other  educational  institutions  are  not  comprehended.  Insofar  as  engineering colleges are concerned, their exclusion may be  for the reason that the opening and running of the private  engineering  colleges  are  controlled  through  the  Board  of  Technical  Education  and  Training  and  the  Director  of  Technical Education in accordance with the directions issued  by the AICTE from time to time.”

In  Bharat Cooperative Bank (Mumbai) Ltd. v. Employees Union  

(2007) 4 SCC 685, this Court again considered the difference between the  

inclusive and exhaustive definitions and observed:

“When in the definition clause given in any statute the word  “means”  is  used,  what  follows  is  intended  to  speak  exhaustively.  When the word “means” is used in the definition  it is a “hard-and-fast” definition and no meaning other than that  which is put in the definition can be assigned to the same.  On  the  other  hand,  when  the  word  “includes”  is  used  in  the  definition,  the  legislature  does  not  intend  to  restrict  the  definition:  it  makes  the  definition  enumerative  but  not  exhaustive.   That  is  to  say,  the  term  defined  will  retain  its  ordinary  meaning  but  its  scope  would  be  extended  to  bring  within it matters, which in its ordinary meaning may or may not  comprise.  Therefore, the use of the word “means” followed by  the word “includes” in the definition of “banking company” in  Section  2(bb)  of  the  ID  Act  is  clearly  indicative  of  the  legislative intent to make the definition exhaustive and would  

13

cover  only  those  banking  companies  which  fall  within  the  purview of the definition and no other.”

In N.D.P. Namboodripad v. Union of India (2007) 4 SCC 502, the  

Court observed :

“The  word  “includes”  has  different  meanings  in  different  contexts. Standard dictionaries assign more than one meaning  to the word “include”.  Webster’s Dictionary defines the word  “include”  as  synonymous  with  “comprise”  or  “contain”.  Illustrated Oxford Dictionary defines the word “include” as: (i)  comprise or reckon in as a part of a whole; (ii) treat or regard as  so included. Collins Dictionary of English Language defines the  word  “includes”  as:  (i)  to  have  as  contents or  part  of  the  contents;  be  made  up  of  or  contain;  (ii)  to  add  as  part  of  something else; put in as part of a set, group or a category; (iii)  to contain as a secondary or minor ingredient or element. It is  no doubt true that generally when the word “include” is used in  a definition clause, it is used as a word of enlargement, that is to  make the definition extensive and not restrictive. But the word  “includes” is also used to connote a specific meaning, that is, as  “means and includes” or “comprises” or “consists of”.”

In  Hamdard (Wakf) Laboratories v.  Dy.  Labour Commissioner  

(2007) 5 SCC 281, it was held as under:

“When an interpretation clause uses the word “includes”, it is  prima  facie  extensive.  When  it  uses  the  word  “means  and  includes”,  it  will  afford  an  exhaustive  explanation  to  the  meaning which for the purposes of the Act must invariably be  attached to the word or expression.”  

15. The judgment in  U.P. Awas Evam Vikas Parishad v. Gyan Devi  

(supra) is clearly distinguishable.  The question which fell for consideration  

14

of  the  Constitution  Bench  was  whether  the  appellant  was  entitled  to  

participate in the proceedings of the Tribunal constituted under Section 64 of  

the  Uttar  Pradesh  Awas  and  Vikas  Parishad  Adhiniyam,  1965  and  lead  

evidence on the issue of payment of compensation to the land owners.  After  

adverting to the definition of `person interested’ contained in Section 3(b),  

Sections 11, 17, 18 and 50 of the 1894 Act, as amended in 1984, and making  

a reference to an earlier judgment in Himalayan Tiles and Marble (P) Ltd.  

v. Francis Victor Coutinho (1980) 3 SCC 223, this Court held that local  

authority is entitled to be impleaded as a party in the proceedings before the  

Reference Court and in case the amount of compensation is enhanced by the  

Court,  the local  authority  can file  an appeal  with  the leave of  the  Court  

subject to the condition that no appeal is filed by the Government.  The ratio  

of  this  decision  cannot  be  invoked  for  declaring  that  the  appellant  falls  

within  the  definition  of  the  expression  `person  interested’  within  the  

meaning of Section 2(d) of the Act and is entitled to challenge the award of  

the  Arbitrator  because  the  definition  which  was  interpreted  by  the  

Constitution Bench was inclusive and not exhaustive.  The other judgments  

in which Section 3(b) of the 1894 Act is interpreted are likewise not relevant  

for deciding the issue raised in this case.

16. In the result, the appeal is dismissed.  The parties are left to bear their  

own costs.

15

………………………….…J. [G.S. Singhvi]

……………………………..J. [Dr. B.S. Chauhan]

New Delhi October 19, 2010.

16