C P ANTONY Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Original Petition has been referred to the Division Bench by a learned Single Judge of this Court (Justice Mr. Pius C. Kuriakose), for a second look at the observations of a Division Bench of this Court in Kamalakshy v. District Collector (1998 (2) KLT 898) holding that the decision of the Full Bench of the Madras High Court in Venkatasami Naidu v. State of Madras (1964 MLJ 262 = AIR 1964 Mad. 434) has been impliedly overruled in view of the recent decision of the Supreme Court in Land Acquisition Officer v. Shiva Bhai ((1997) 9 SCC 710).

(2.) BEFORE answering the question referred to us, we will consider the facts of this case. Petitioner received notice on 4.5.1989, issued under Section 12(2) of the Land Acquisition Act (for short 'the Act') regarding the passing of Ext.P2 award in respect of the property acquired from him, fixing the market value of the land at Rs. 519.40 per Are. He accepted the amount under protest, as to the sufficiency of the amount. Within the time prescribed, he also requested for enhancement of compensation by letter dated 1.6.1989. Petitioner, in the above letter, stated that the market price of the land at the time of acquisition was Rs. 1,500 per cent and at least that rate should be allowed to him. But, his case was not referred under Section 18 of the Act. The ground taken by the Government was that there was no request under Section 18 of the Act, for making a reference. We asked the Government Pleader to produce the files, so that we can peruse the letter dated 1.6.1989 written by the petitioner. The operative portion of the letter reads as follows:

(3.) THE Full Bench of the Madras High Court in Venkatasami Naidu's case (supra) (1964 MLJ 262 = AIR 1964 Mad. 434), held that when protest letter is filed in time, it implies a request for reference. The relevant portion of the letter from the claimant in that case, showing receipt of the award amount under protest, is quoted as follows: