OURUPUVIL MATHEW OUSEPH Vs. DISTRICT COLLECTOR ERNAKULAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The complaint of the petitioner in the Original Petition is that in spite of an application for reference made by him under Section 20 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1961, the District Collector, Ernakulam has taken the stand that petitioner is not competent to claim reference. That is not because there has been any order on that application. But the stand of the District Collector is evident from Ext. P. 4, a reply to the suit notice issued to the petitioner. Therein it is mentioned that the compensation was received by the party without protest on 30-4-1966 and no reference application was filed before the Special Tahsildar as alleged. In the original petition mention is made of the filing of the reference application dt. 30-4-1968 and it is said it was sent by registered post. The acknowledgment of this is also produced along with the Original Petition, marked Ext. P-2. In the light of the circumstance that the Special Tahsildar Land Acquisition, who has filed the counter-affidavit has not chosen to deny the receipt of the reference application, I take it that the reference application has been filed.

(2.) The only question therefore is whether the amount was received without protest and if so for that reason the reference application was incompetent. Section 20 of the Kerala Land Acquisition Act deals with 'reference to court' and that section reads:

(3.) The "Collector" in this case had evidently not considered the circumstances relating to the receipt of the amount under protest. Evidently he has not even adverted to the existence of a reference application in which specific mention was made that the compensation awarded was inadequate. That reference application was sent on the same day the compensation was received. That would show that at the time when the petitioner received the amount he was not satisfied with the amount awarded as compensation. The circumstances therefore indicate that the amount was received under protest. In view of the fact that the reference petition is seen to have been filed the reference ought to have been made. I direct that the original of Ext. P. 1 reference application will be referred by the authority competent to refer this matter to the court expeditiously.