CHERIAN CHACKO Vs. KSEB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The main question in this Civil Revision Petition is whether the petitioner's acceptance of the compensation amount awarded by the Telegraph Authority under proviso (d) to S.10 of the Telegraph Act without protest at the time of such receipt would disentitle him from making an application before the District Judge under S.16(3) disputing the sufficiency of the compensation. The lower court is of opinion that the receipt of the compensation without at least a protest is a bar to the application.

(2.) The argument of the learned advocate of the Electricity Board, the respondent before me, is twofold. Firstly, he contends that the principle embodied in the second proviso to S.31(2) of the Land Acquisition Act should be applied to a petition under S.16(3) of the Telegraph Act. For the reasons I shall give hereinafter I am not inclined to accept this contention.

(3.) Under the Land Acquisition Act a complete scheme or code of procedure is laid down conferring powers on the Collector to enquire into measurements, value and claims and also to grant an award after such enquiry. The persons interested are given notice and are entitled to make their objections and the Collector is bound to hear and decide those objections. The Collector has then to make an award, which shall be filed in his office, and that award shall be final and conclusive, but for certain exceptions. Thereafter, any person interested who has not accepted the award is given the right to apply in writing to the Collector requiring that the matter may be referred for the determination of the Court. After making such detailed provisions regarding the enquiry and reference by the Collector, the first two provisos to S.31(2) lay down that any person may receive such compensation under protest and that no person who has received the amount otherwise than under protest shall be entitled to make an application to the Collector requiring him to refer the matter to the Court.