ORDER P.D. MuIye, J.- l. The petitioners, who are the owners of the building situated at 11, Prince Yeshwant Road, Indore have filed this petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India with a prayer that the respondents be directed to immediately release the property and determine by agreement within a time specified by this Court, compensation for the period from 7th March, 1985 to 6th March, 1987 and thereafter till the date the possession of the property is returned to the petitioners. It is further prayed that if no agreement is possible the matter may be directed to be referred to arbitration. It has also been prayed that the respondents be also directed to continue to pay compensation at the rate of Rs. 13,170/-per month which was being paid earlier till the dispute about the revision of the compensation is resolved. The petitioners have also sought the relief that the respondents be restrained from adjusting any amounts from compensation so payable from 1-5-1987 onwards. 2. The facts giving rise to this petition, may be stated, in brief, thus: By an order dt. 11-9-1969 (Annexure-A) passed under S. 4 of the Requisitioning and Acquisition of Immovable Property Act, 1952, the said building situated at 11. Prince Yeshwant Road, Indore was requisitioned for the purpose of City Post Office. Indore. 3. The said Act, namely requisitioning and Acquisition of Immovable Property Act, 1952 (No. 30 of 1952) was initially intended to be operative for a period of only six years from its commencement. By an amendment in the year 1958 its duration was further extended by six years. Again the duration of the said Act was further extended upto 13-3-1970. By Amending Act No. 1 of 1970, the provision regarding the duration of the Act was delected with the result that this Act became a permanent Statute. A new provision-Section 6 (1-A) was, however, added to provide for the release of the property from acquisition after a period of 3 years from the commencement of the amending Act. However, by subsequent amendment this period of three years provided for the release of the property was extended to 5 years, then to ten years and finally to 17 years from the commencement of the Amending Act of 1970 i.e. from 11-3-1970. Accordingly, the said period had finally expired on 6-3-1987. This legal position is not disputed on behalf of the respondents. Accordingly, the said period had finally expired on 6-3-1987. This legal position is not disputed on behalf of the respondents. 4. On the requisition of the said property on 11-9-1969, an amount of Rs. 2,950/- per month was fixed as compensation by agreement between the parties. After this initial fixation of compensation the respondents did not revise the compensation as required by S. 8 (2-A) of the said Act. The respondents were expected to revise the compensation twice, first in the year 1975 and second time in the year 1980. 5. As the respondents did not revise the compensation and also did not refer the dispute for arbitration, the petitioners filed M. P. 452 of 82 calling upon the respondents to refer the matter to arbitration which was allowed and accordingly the matter was then referred to arbitration and ultimately an award was passed by the Arbitrator Hon'ble Justice Shri V.R. Newaskar on 5-3-1986 (Annexure-B), according to which the compensation was fixed at the fair rate of Rs. 2/- per square feet per month, which was payable by the respondents to the petitioners from 7th March, 1980 and thereafter until its revision afresh as provided in the amended• provision of the said Act. 6. On the basis of Ex. P-2 as mentioned in the said award (which is the same as Annexure-R/4) dated: 12-2-85, the petitioners were to carry out the items of work mentioned therein. All these facts are also not in dispute, including the fact that the petitioners have carried out the items of work as mentioned in Annexure-R 4. 7. Further, according to the petitioners under sub-section (2- A) of S. 8 of the said Act, the compensation became revisable with effect from 7th March, 1980. When no steps were taken in this regard, the petitioners served the respondents with a notice dated 14th July' 86 (Annexure C) requesting for revision by mutual agreement or referring the same matter to arbitration. 8. Accordingly, respondent No.2, namely Director Postal Services, Indore Region, Indore informed the petitioners vide his letter elated 1-10-1986 (Annexure-D) that first meeting of the Committee set up for fair rent assessment was to be held on 15-10-1986 for assessment of compensation for requisition in respect of the petitioner's premises. 8. Accordingly, respondent No.2, namely Director Postal Services, Indore Region, Indore informed the petitioners vide his letter elated 1-10-1986 (Annexure-D) that first meeting of the Committee set up for fair rent assessment was to be held on 15-10-1986 for assessment of compensation for requisition in respect of the petitioner's premises. As no decision could be reached in the first meeting, second meeting was held on 19-1-87, as per Annexure-E. Accordingly, the Committee recommended compensation at the rate of Rs. 2.65 p. per sq. ft. from 7-3-1985 to 6-3-1990 as per Annexure-F dated 14-4 87. 9. However, the petitioners, vide their reply dated 22nd April, 1987 (Annexure G) to the respondent, pointed out the difference between the other premises and their premises and again asked for settlement of compensation as per the provisions of the said Act. 10. But according to the petitioners no further action was taken for revision of the compensation. A dispute was raised by the Department as to whether the rate awarded as per Annexure-B applies to the carpet area of the premises or to the built up area and the respondent No.2 by his letter dt. 7th May, 1987 (Ann. H) informed the petitioners that the rent payable at the rate of Rs. 2/- per sq. ft. is for the carpet area, but as it was paid as per the built up area in the past an excess payment was made which should be deposited back in lump sum and a joint verification of carpet area be completed. Thereafter, after some correspondence the carpet area was measured and on 1st June, 1987 the respondent No.4 Postmaster, Prince Yeshwant Road Post Office, Indore City, vide Annexure-I informed the petitioners that an excess amount of Rs. 2,19,422.77 was made towards compensation for the period 7-3-1980 to 30-4-1987 and instead of Rs. 13,170/- per month a sum of Rs. 10,612/- per month would be paid to the petitioners by adjusting the excess compensation. 11. On 3-6-1986, the respondent No.3, namely the Superintendent of Post Offices wrote to the Petitioners vide Annexure-J that after measurement of carpet area it was found to be 5,306 sq ft., though vide Annexure K, dated 23rd July, 1986 the Senior Superintendent of Post Offices, Indore City had informed the petitioners that sanction has been accorded for payment of compensation to the petitioners at the rate of Rs. 13, 170/- per month with effect from 1-3-1985. Hence this petition. 12. The principal respondents, namely respondents Nos. 2, 3, 4 & 5 have submitted that in pursuance of Annexure-C, proceedings for determination of fair rent was started, vide Annexures-D, E & F, but the petitioner himself did not agree for the same. Still he has himself consented on 1-5-1987 and 22-4-1987 to the new revised compensation of Rs. 2.65 p. per sq. ft. from 7-3-1985 and to the deduction of excess amount paid from the new compensation. Further, the department has been authorised by the petitioner to deduct Rs. 5,000/- per month as per Annexure-R 3 dated 1-5-1987. further, according to the respondents, the petitioners by their letter dated 1-5.-1987 Annexure- R/1 has agreed to extend the lease up to 7-3-1990 for a period of five years. Besides, as per Government Circular Annexure-R 2 the rent of the premises is always fixed on the carpet area alone and, therefore, it is on that basis that, according to the respondent, excess payment made toawards compensation to the petitioner was deducted from the monthly compensation. 13. Further, according to the respondent Annexure-K was written under the mistaken belief. It is also their contention that though the extended period of 17 years under the provisions of the said Act has come to an end on 7-3-1987 and technical formalities for formal release of the property are being initiated, the premises have been retained for a further period of 5 years as per Annexure-R 1 dated 1-5-1987. Therefore, the petitioners having agreed to accept the compensation at the rate of Rs. 2.65 p. per sq. ft. vide his letter dated 22-4-1987 and letter dated 1-5-1987, the matter has been referred to Government for acceptance and in these circumstances the petitioners are not entitled to get back the possession of the premises in question. 14. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that according to the provisions of S. 6 (I-A) of the said Act, the period of 17 years having already expired on 6-3-1987, the respondents are duty bound to de-requisition the premises in question and hand over vacant possession to the petitioners as they have no right or authority to retain its possession beyond 6-3-1987. This legal position was not disputed by the learned counsel for the respondents and, therefore, in view of the averments made in the returns, the respondents ought to have delivered possession of the pre mires in question to the petitioners immediately after 6-3-1987. 15. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that by Annexure-F dated 14-4-1987, of which reply was given Annexure-G dated 22-4-1987, the petitioners had not accepted the compensation at the rate of Rs. 2.65 per sq. ft. on the basis of the carpet area and the petitioners vide letter dated 21-12-1987 Annexure N had declined to accept the said proposal, which fact has been reiterated by the petitioners by their counter-affidavit dated 28-6-1988. The learned counsel for the petitioners, therefore, submitted that though the subsequent affidavit dated 5-1-1988 submitted by Vedkumar Dhir, indicates that the Government had provisionally accepted the compensation at the rate of Rs. 2.65 per sq. ft. and by the subsequent affidavit dated 13-4-1988 of the same Gentlemen, the Government had finally accepted the same, is of no assistance in view of the fact that, vide Annexure-N dated 21-12-1987 the petitioners had already declined to accept that offer and, therefore, admittedly there is no concluded contract between the parties. He, therefore, submitted that as per the award Annexure-B dated 3rd Feb., 1986, the compensation for the period 7-3-1980 upto 6-3-1985 has been fixed at Rs.2/- per sq. ft , the respondents are bound to pay to the petitioners at the rate of Rs. 13,170/- per month and they have no right or authority to deduct therefrom any amount and, thus, the amount deducted by the respondents on the ground of alleged excess payment should be ordered to be returned to the petitioners. He also submitted that for the subsequent period from 7-3-1985 to 6-3-1987 on which date the property in question ought to have been de-requisitioned and also for the subsequent period during which the respondents have been in possession of the said premises, there being obviously now a dispute about the rate of compensation, and no agreement having been reached between the parties, according to ,the provisions of S. 8 (1) (b) of the said Act, a duty is cast on the Central Government to appoint as arbitrator, a person who is, or has been, or is qualified for appointment, as a Judge of a High Court. 16 On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents, though he did not dispute the legal position that technically the petitioners are entitled to get back the actual vacant possession of the premises after 6-3-1987, submitted that it would cause great hardship and inconvenience to the public in general if the respondents are called upon to deliver vacant possession, thereof to the petitioner where the city post office is being run on a large scale. He also submitted that for the period 7-3-1985 upto 6-3-1987 and onwards there being a dispute regarding the rate of compensation payable to the petitioners, 'the matter has to be decided by an Arbitrator as contemplated by S. 8 (1) (b) of the said Act and till the matter is decided by the Arbitrator the petitioners are not entitled to get back the possession of the premises in question, in view of the stand taken by the petitioners. vide Annexure-L dated 4th May, 1987 according to which the total area occupied by the respondents comes to 6,585 sq. ft. He also submitted that a reading of Annexure R/4 (Ex. P/2) dated 10-2-1985 would indicate that the petitioners had agreed to accept the compensation at the rate of Rs 2/- per sq. ft. on the carpet area. He, therefore, submitted that petitioners are not entitled for repayment of the amount which has been deducted from the monthly compensation, as excess payment. 17. In reply, the learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that a bare reading of Annexure-R 4 dt. 10-2-1985 would clearly indicate that what was agreed to by the petitioners was to an increase of Rs.2/- per sq. ft. over and above the existing compensation at Rs. 2/- per sq. ft. in case compensation was to be paid on the basis of carpet area. Therefore, according to the learned counsel, the respondents are not correct in their submission that the petitioners had agreed as per Annexure-B to accept compensation at the rate of Rs. 2/- per sq. ft. on the basis of carpet area. 18. Thus, after hearing the learned counsel and after considering the provisions of S. 6 (l-A) of the said Act, the respondents are not legally entitled to retain possession of the premises in question after 6-3-1987 and consequently they are bound to redeliver vacant possession thereof to the petitioners. 19. 2/- per sq. ft. on the basis of carpet area. 18. Thus, after hearing the learned counsel and after considering the provisions of S. 6 (l-A) of the said Act, the respondents are not legally entitled to retain possession of the premises in question after 6-3-1987 and consequently they are bound to redeliver vacant possession thereof to the petitioners. 19. We also find that for the period 7-3-1985 till 6-3-1987 and onwards so long as the respondents are in possession of the premises in question, there is a dispute regarding the quantum of compensation to be fixed for that period and, therefore, this can be decided only by an Arbitrator, who is to be appointed by the Central Government as contemplated by S. 8 (1) (b) of the said Act. 20. In the result this petition succeeds and is allowed with costs. The respondents shall deliver vacant possession of the entire premises in question by releasing the said property under the provisions of the said Act on or before 31st December, 1989, which in our opinion is sufficient period for the respondents to make alternate arrangement. It is also ordered that from 7-3-1980 upto 6-3-1985 the petitioners are entitled to receive compensation from the respondents at the rate of Rs. 13,170/- per month and the deductions made on account of alleged excess payment shall be returned to the' petitioners. It is further ordered that as there is a dispute regarding the rate of compensation for the period 7-3-1985 upto 6-3-1987 and onwards till the respondents are in possession of the premises, the respondents shall continue to pay monthly compensation at the rate of Rs. 13,170/- to the petitioners without any deduction till an Arbitrator is appointed by the Central Government under S. 8 (1) (b) of the said Act and in that case the petitioners shall be entitled to the compensation as fixed by the Arbitrator so appointed. The Central Government shall appoint the Arbitrator within a period of 2 (two) months from today. Counsel's fee Rs. 500/-. The amount (If security deposit, if any, after verification be returned to the petitioners in person.