INDRAJ Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellants are aggrieved by a judgment and order dated 02.04.2005 passed by the learned Additional District Judge on a reference received by him under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), in respect of the land situated in the revenue estate of village Kilokari under Award No.1457 pronounced on 03.01.1963, pursuant to issuance of a notification under Section 4 of the Act dated 13.11.1959, followed by a declaration under Section 6 of the Act, dated 17.08.1962.

(2.) Under the aforesaid Award dated 03.01.1963, the Land Acquisition Collector (LAC) divided the acquired land into two blocks, Block I & Block II. The market value of the acquired land, falling in Block I, i.e., land which was situated near the built up area, was determined @ Rs.4,500/- per bigha and land falling in Block II, which was under cultivation, was determined @ Rs.2,500/- per bigha. The possession of the acquired land was taken by the respondents after passing of the Award. Dissatisfied by the determination of the prevalent market value of the land, the predecessors-in-interest of the appellants preferred a reference petition under Section 18 of the Act on 02.12.1963, claiming inter alia that the market value at the relevant time was Rs.30/- per sq. yard.

(3.) As per the predecessors-in-interest of the appellants, Sh.Indraj and Smt. Ram Devi, they had filed an application for enhancement of compensation and prayed inter alia that the awarded compensation be paid to them, which they would be willing to accept under protest. On 26.06.1963, compensation @ Rs.4,000/- per bigha was duly received by the said landowners. However, it was not mentioned on the receipt that the said amount was being received by them under protest. As a result, although the reference petition filed by them was received in the office of the LAC on 4.12.1963, he refused to forward the same to the learned ADJ for adjudication on the ground that the compensation was received by Sh.Indraj and Smt. Ram Devi without any protest. Aggrieved by the said refusal on the part of the LAC to forward the reference petition to the Additional District Judge, Delhi, for enhancement of compensation, the predecessors-in-interest of the appellants filed a Civil Writ Petition in this Court, registered as Civil Writ Petition No.387/1984. After considering the submissions of the petitioners in the aforesaid petition, a single Judge of this Court held that since late Shri Indraj and Smt. Ram Devi had already filed an application lodging their protest, it was not necessary for them to lodge their protest on the pay bill and that the LAC ought to have at least heard them before refusing to make a reference under Section 18 of the Act. Accordingly, the rejection order of the LAC dated 03.10.1983 was set aside and he was directed to forward the reference petition to the District Judge for proper adjudication in accordance with law.