JUDGMENT Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J. - Heard Mr. Vikash Pandey, counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner. 2. Heard Mr. Rajiv Sinha, Assistant Solicitor General of India appearing on behalf of the respondent nos.1 to 3 assisted by Mr. Niraj Kumar, Advocate. 3. Heard Mr. Arup Kumar Dey, counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent no.4. 4. This writ petition has been filed for the following reliefs:- (a) "For a direction upon the respondent(s) to appoint an Arbitrator in terms of section 8 (1) (b) of the Requisitioning and Acquisition of Immovable Property Act, 1952 (hereinafter called R.A.I.P Act) with respect to the land of the petitioner i.e M.S. Plot No. 94 having an area of 1.51 Acres in ward 1 of Ranchi Municipality, village Morabadi (Now Bariatu) Ranchi which has been acquisitioned vide notification dated 27.2.1987 which stands in the name of the petitioner for fixation of just and proper compensation. (b) For fixing recurring compensation with regard to above land in view of the R.A.I.P Act." 5. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the land measuring 1.51 Acres in Municipal Survey Plot No.94 situated at Morabadi in town Ranchi was acquired by the concerned respondents in exercise of powers under the provision of Requisitioning and Acquisition of Immovable Property Act, 1952. He submits that Government of India, Ministry of Defence vide letter No. 7777/7/Q 31 LA (COLL)/192/S/D (Lands) dated 30.4.1986 accorded sanction for permanently acquiring large chunk of land including aforesaid property of the petitioner and accordingly L.A. Case No. 2 (Military) of 86-87 was started and an award was prepared in the name of the petitioner and the Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi sanctioned payment of Rs. 5,55,482.19 only to the awarded. The petitioner submits that the award was prepared on 01.03.1989 and the petitioner had received the said amount under protest on 08.03.1989. Thereafter, the petitioner filed a petition on 7.4.1989 in the Court of Collector (Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi) in L.A. Case No.2 (Military) of 86-87, who is the competent authority under the Act, to refer the matter for appointment of arbitrator and determination of the compensation by the arbitrator. Thereafter, the petitioner filed a petition on 7.4.1989 in the Court of Collector (Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi) in L.A. Case No.2 (Military) of 86-87, who is the competent authority under the Act, to refer the matter for appointment of arbitrator and determination of the compensation by the arbitrator. Counsel for the petitioner submits that as per the provisions of Rule 6 of the Requisitioning and Acquisition of Immovable Property Rules, 1953, the protest was registered within a period of 15 days from the date of the award and thereafter the petitioner after receiving certified copy of the award, duly filed detailed petition before the competent authority on 07.04.1989. According to the petitioner, the said petition filed on 07.04.1989 ought to have been referred by the competent authority to the respondent no.1 for the purposes of appointment of arbitrator but such action having not been taken, the petitioner has filed this writ petition. He submits that the appointment of arbitrator has to be done by respondent no.1 and not by the authorities of the State Government and in spite of the protest having been registered at the time of accepting the compensation which was supplemented by a detailed petition filed on 07.04.1989, the arbitrator has not been appointed by respondent no.1 and therefore appropriate direction be issued upon the respondent no.1 for the purposes of appointment of arbitrator. He further submits that the respondent no.4 be directed to refer the matter to respondent no.1 for appointment of arbitrator. He submits that admittedly the agreement in Form - K under the said Act and the rules has not been entered into between the parties. 6. Counsel for the respondent-State on the other hand submits that vide letter dated 23.09.2010 issued by the Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi, a request was made to the various authorities of the State of Jharkhand for the purposes of appointment of arbitrator and for doing the needful. 7. Counsel for the respondent-Union of India submits that a counter-affidavit has been filed by Union of India wherein it has been mentioned that the petitioner has approached this High Court after lapse of almost 20 years from the date of award for the appointment of arbitrator. The prayer of the petitioner is barred by limitation. 7. Counsel for the respondent-Union of India submits that a counter-affidavit has been filed by Union of India wherein it has been mentioned that the petitioner has approached this High Court after lapse of almost 20 years from the date of award for the appointment of arbitrator. The prayer of the petitioner is barred by limitation. It is clearly laid down in Rule 9(5) (i) of the Requisitioning and Acquisition of Immovable Property Rules, 1953 and also as per the judgment passed by Hon''ble Supreme Court in judgment reported in 1995 Suppl (4) SCC 660 (Union of India and Ors. v. Munsha and Ors. ), that any person aggrieved with the quantum of compensation may approach to the competent authority in writing within 15 days of receipt of compensation for appointment of arbitrator and accordingly counsel for the respondent-Union of India submits that on account of aforesaid stand taken by Union of India in counter affidavit, no relief can be granted to the petitioner. 8. After hearing the counsel for the parties and after considering the materials on record this Court finds that the award was prepared on 01.03.1989 which was received by the petitioner under protest on 08.03.1989. 9. Rule 9 (5) (i) of the Requisitioning and Acquisition of Immovable Property Rules, 1953 reads as under:- "9.5.(i) Every person interested to whom an offer is made under sub-rule (3) shall, within fifteen days of the receipt of the offer, communicate in writing to the competent authority his acceptance or otherwise of the offer. If he accepts the offer, the competent authority shall enter into an agreement with him on behalf of the Central Government in Form ''K''." 10. From this fact, this Court finds that the protest in connection with the compensation was registered by the petitioner at the time of receiving the compensation itself. Accordingly, there is no question of entering into any agreement in ''From-K'' which has admittedly not been entered into in the instant case. From this fact, this Court finds that the protest in connection with the compensation was registered by the petitioner at the time of receiving the compensation itself. Accordingly, there is no question of entering into any agreement in ''From-K'' which has admittedly not been entered into in the instant case. Subsequently, the petitioner within a month filed his detailed petition dated on 07.04.1989 before the competent authority for the purposes of appointment of arbitrator but the Deputy Commissioner instead of referring this matter to the Respondent No.1 has referred the matter to the various authorities of the State Government itself for the purposes of appointment of arbitration and it appears that because of this reason arbitrator could not be appointed by the Union of India. It further appears that no communication has been sent to the Union of India for the purposes of appointment of arbitrator. This Court finds that the petitioner had recorded his protest within a period of 15 days and also filed a petition within a period of 1 month thereafter and accordingly the petitioner had done whatever the petitioner could have done and no delay or laches can be attributed to the petitioner in the facts and circumstances of this case. This Court further finds that the Deputy Commissioner ought to have referred the matter to the respondent no.1 for the purposes of appointment of arbitrator but instead of that the Deputy Commissioner had issued letters to the authorities of the State Government which has caused further delay in the matter. Further, this Court finds that the judgment referred by the Union of India reported in Union of India v. Munsa (supra) does not help the respondents in any manner whatsoever as in the instant case the protest was lodged by the petitioner at the time of accepting compensation itself and accordingly the agreement under ''Form-K'' was not entered into between the parties. Considering, the aforesaid factual matrix this Court directs the respondent no.4 to refer the matter to respondent no.1 for the purposes of appointment of arbitrator in the matter. Considering, the aforesaid factual matrix this Court directs the respondent no.4 to refer the matter to respondent no.1 for the purposes of appointment of arbitrator in the matter. The respondent no.4 is directed to do so within a period of 15 days from the receipt of copy of this order and further the respondent no.1 is directed to appoint an arbitrator in terms of the section 8 of the Requisitioning and Acquisition of Immovable Property Act, 1952 read with the Requisitioning and Acquisition of Immovable Property Rules, 1953 within a period of two months from the receipt of the communication from the Respondent No. 4. 11. The writ petition is allowed with the aforesaid directions. 12. It is made clear that this Court has not gone into the merits of the claim of the petitioner.