GEORGE Vs. DISTRICT COLLECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner was the owner of 01.53 acres of land comprised in Resurvey Nos. 76/3 and 43.20, noted as Resurvey Nos. 76/36 and 43.30, of Konni Village. An award was passed on 19.11.2005. On 26.11.2005 petitioner filed Ext. P3 petition before the Land Acquisition Officer contending that the compensation awarded was not fair and he may be awarded higher prices for his loss. Receipt of this petition is not disputed by the respondents. But the matter was referred only under S.31(2) of the Land Acquisition Act (for short 'the Act'). There was no reference under S.18 of the Act. Though in the notice received from the court S.18 was also shown, it is submitted by the counsel for the petitioner that on enquiry it was understood that the reference was made only under S.31(2) of the Act. Hence this Writ Petition for a direction to the respondents to refer his claim under S.18 of the Act also.

(2.) In paragraph 11 of the counter affidavit filed by the respondents it is submitted that the reason for non reference under S.18 of the Act was that the Land Acquisition Officer has not received any information whether the petitioner was the title holder of the land acquired. It is also submitted that the petitioner did not receive the compensation.

(3.) The matter was referred to court under S.31(2) of the Act because the petitioner did not produce any documents to prove his title. But the mere fact that the person who makes a claim for enhancement does not produce documents before the Land Acquisition Officer is not a ground not to refer the matter under S.18 of the Act also. Ext. P3 contains all the necessary ingredients. See Venkatasami Naidu v. State of Madras, AIR 1964 Mad. 434 . So the Land Acquisition Officer ought to have referred the claim of the petitioner under S.18 of the Act also. The questions -- whether the petitioner is entitled to get any enhanced compensation and whether Ext. P3 is sufficient to fix the quantum of compensation, etc. are matters to be decided by the reference court. I am of the view that the refusal to refer the matter under S.18 of the Act is illegal.