JEET SINGH Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Shahpur Jat, Delhi. The Union of India acquired this land and issued notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act and thereafter under Section 6 of the Act. The Land Acquisition Collector thereafter notified the claim for compensation and the petitioner claimed Rs. 40 per square yard (Rs. 40,000.00 per bigha) as compensation. The Land Acquisition Collector, however made an award, No. 2034 dated 24th November, 1967, by which he awarded compensation at the rate of Rs. 4,000.00 per bigha to the petitioner. On coming to know of this the petitioner wrote to the Land Acquisition Collector on 7th December, 1967 a copy of which is attached as annexure 'A' to the petition, informing him that he was dis-satisfied with the amount of compensation awarded and he also mentioned a number of cases in which higher compensation had been awarded than that to the petitioner. He specifically mentioned in this application that the claimant may be paid the compensation to him against his title claim which the claimant received under protest. He also made a prayer in the application that he reserved his right to get enhanced rate of compensation by reference under Section 18 of the Act which the claimant is filing forthwith. On 16th December, 1967, the petitioner was offered and he received the compensation amount as determined by the Land Acquisition Collector. It is not disputed that the petitioner did not at the time of the receipt of the amount say that he was receiving the amount under protest. Subsequently on 3rd January, 1968 the petitioner filed an application under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act requesting that his case be referred to the District Judge under the Act. A copy of the application is attached as annexure 'B' to the petition. On receipt of the application under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, of the petitioner, the Land Acquisition Collector wrote to him informing him that as the petitioner had received the amount on 16th December, 1967 without Protest no reference could be made as the same was barred under Section 31 of the Act. A formal intimation of this was also sent to the petitioner on 2nd April, 1968, by the Land Acquisition Collector. It was thereafter that the present writ petition was filed by the petitioner in which he claimed that the refusal of the Land Acquisition Collector to make reference under Section 18 of the Act is patently illegal. A reference to the order of the Land Acquisition Collector dated 20th February, 1968, annexure 'C' to the petition shows that the only reason why he refused to refer the case of the petitioner is because of the assumption that the petitioner had received the amount on 16th December, 1967, without protest and, therefore, no reference could be made in view. of the provision of Section 31 of the Act.

(2.) Return has been filed by the respondent and the same position is sought to be supported and a specific reference is made to two cases i.e. A.I.R. 1964 Cal. 283 and A.I.R. 1926 Lah. 321 as supporting the decision of the Land Acquisition Collector.

(3.) In my view the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is sound and the petition should be allowed. A.I.R. 1926 Lah 321 does not deal with the matter at all. A reference to the judgment reported as A.I.R. 1964 Cal. 283 shows that the case is clearly distinguishable. In that case after the award was announced the claimant made an application on July 18,1958 under Section 18 of the Act claiming that the matter be referred. In that very application the claimant also stated that he was receiving the compensation as awarded under protest. Subsequently on 18th August, 1958, the petitioner asked for the two drafts for the payment of the compensation to him. Still later on January 30, 1959 the claimant received the compensation in the form of bank drafts and duly executed the receipts therefor. Neither on 18th August, 1958 nor in the receipt dated 30.1.1959 was there any repetition of the protest under which the claimant was prepared to accept the compensation amount. It will be seen that in that case the only mention of protest was in the application made under Section 18 of the Act. It was in these circumstances that it was held that if a person makes a protest in the application made under Section 18 of the Act that will not protect him and his case will be barred under Section 31 (2) second proviso. This case was also followed in 7977 P.L.R. 261. There also the facts were the same and that case is also distinguishable. It may, however, be noticed that in a latter division bench judgment of Calcutta High Court reported as A.I.R. 1969 Calcutta 221 doubt was cast on the correctness of earlier judgment i.e. A.I.R. 1964 Cal. 283 in so far as it was intended to lay down that unless the protest actually appeared in the body of the receipt the receipt must be taken to be a receipt without protect. In the present case it would be seen that the position adopted by the Land Acquisition Collector seems to be that as at the time of receiving payment it was not written 'under protest' the payment could not be said to have been received under protest. The Land Acquisition Collector obviously omitted to notice that the petitioner had specifically in the application annexure 'A' dated 7.12.1957 made it clear that he was willing to receive the compensation under protest. When the compensation was received by the petitioner on 16.12.1967 it obviously could not be divorced from the application made by him on 7.12.1967 where in it was specifically mentioned that the compensation was being received under protest. The petitioner had made his position clear by submitting a separate application. All that is necessary is that the claimant should have unmistakably stated that he is receiving the amount of compensation under protest. If, therefore, the has before receiving the compensation intimated as in the present case by a separate application that he will be receiving the compensation under protest, it is not necessary for him to repeat the endorsement 'under protest' necessarily at the time when he receives the payment. He may do so. But it seems to me that his failure to do so at that time cannot lead to the conclusion that he was not receiving the payment under protest. The previous application cannot be ignored when arriving at a conclusion whether the payment was received under protest. I have, therefore, no manner of doubt that the view taken by respondent No. 2 is erroneous in law and he has failed to exercise his jurisdiction when he refused to refer the application under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act filed by the petitioner. I would, therefore, allow this petition, quash the order annexure 'C' and remit the case back to respondent No. 2 who will dispose of the application made under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act annexure 'B' to the petition in accordance with law and merit. There will be no order as to costs.