KANNAN Vs. LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) 40 cents of petitioner's property was acquired after all statutory formalities. Award was passed on 15-4-:1996. Notice of award was served under section 12 (2) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as 'the act') on 16-5-1996. Property was taken possession of by the authority on 18-5-1996. Compensation was paid on 20-5-1996. According to the petitioner, in one of the forms he had endorsed 'not satisfactory'. Files were called for and they show that compensation was accepted without any sort of protest. According to the petitioner it was accepted by oral protest. However, there are no records or evidence to show that the amount was received under protest. On next day of receipt of compensation he applied for reference to the Court for enhancement of compensation. Section 18 of the Act is as follows : "18. Reference to Court: - (1) Any person interested who has not accepted the award may by written application to the Collector, require that the matter be referred by the Collector for the determination of the Court, whether his objection be to the measurement of the land, the amount of the compensation, the persons to whom it is payable, or the apportionment of the compensation among the persons interested. (2) The application shall state the grounds on which objection to the award is taken; Provided that every such application shall be made: (a) if the person making it was present or represented before the Collector at the time when he made his award, within six weeks from the date of the Collector's award : (b) in other cases, within six weeks of the receipt of the notice from the Collector under section 12, sub-section (2), or within six months from the date of the Collector's award, whichever period shall first expire. " Proviso to section 31 (2) of the Act stipulates that "no person who has received the amount otherwise than under protest shall be entitled to make any application under section 18. "

(2.) APPLICATION for reference under section 18 of the Act filed by the petitioner was rejected, as award amount was not accepted under protest. Petitioner relied on the Apex Court decision reported in Ajit Singh and others v. State of Punjab and others ( (1994) 4 SCC 67) and argued that since he has filed application in time, his application should not have been rejected. Petitioner also relied on the decision reported in Sosa v. State (1966 KLT 998) and argued that in any event Land Acquisition Officer should have referred the matter to the Court and it is for the Court to decide whether application was filed in accordance with Section 18.

(3.) IN Varkey Pathrose v. State of Kerala (1990 (2) KLT 10) it was held that the second proviso to section 3 3 (2) of the Act categorically provides that no person who has received the amount, otherwise than under protest shall be entitled to make any application under section 20. The proviso prohibits the making of an application if he receives the amount without making any protest. Therefore it is clear that the Land Acquisition Officer need refer an application under section 18 only if the award amount is not accepted or accepted under protest and application is filed in time. Supreme court has recently clarified the legal position in Wardington Lyngdoh and others v. Collector, Mawkyrwat (AIR 1995 SC 2340), Apex Court observed as follows : "it will thus be clear that the persons interested in the land are entitled to receive compensation awarded by the Collector under section 11 under protest and entitled to object to the compensation determined by the Collector. No person who had received the amount otherwise than under protest should be entitled to make the application under section 18. IN other words, the receipt of the amount under protest is a condition precedent to make an application under section 18 within the limitation prescribed under the provision to sub-section (2) of section 18 together with the grounds on which the objections have been taken. Thereon the Collector is enjoined to make a reference to the Civil Court with the statement in the manner stated in Section 19. " Therefore, it is clear that on the facts of each case it should be proved that the amount was received with protest. Mere averment that the amount was received under protest orally is not enough. IN this case, even though petitioner affirms that the amount was paid under protest, there is no such protest recorded. There is no other circumstances also to show that the amount was received under protest. It was submitted by the learned Government pleader that on the same day others also were tendered compensation and whoever protested, their protections were registered. Here, petitioner failed to show that the amount was received under protest. Hence respondent was justified in rejecting the reference application.