KAMALAKSHY Vs. DISTRICT COLLECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Mr. V. Chitambaresh for the petitioners and Mr. P. K. Ravikrishnan, learned Government Pleader, for the respondents.

(2.) LANDS belonging to petitioners 1 and 2 and the predecessor-in-interest of petitioners 3 and 4 were acquired by the respondents. Petitioners filed their objections to the notices received under s. 9 (3) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short'the Act' ). True copies of the objections filed in this regard dated 1. 12. 1995,20. 12. 1995 and 22. 3. 1996 are marked as Exts. P1, P2 and P3 respectively. It is specifically stated in the said Exhibits that the matter may be referred to the Land Acquisition Court in case the compensation claimed by the land owners at the rate of Rs. 3,000/-per cent is not awarded. The third petitioner, as the power-of-attorney-holder of the land owners, subsequently received notice of awards under S. 12 (2) of the act specifying the amount awarded as compensation for acquisition. The said notices issued by the second respondent are marked as Exts. P4 and P5 and P6 respectively. It is seen from the notices that compensation has been awarded below the rate of Rs. 3. 000/- per cent claimed. According to the petitioners, the request for reference is already embodied in the objections filed by the land owners through their power-of-attorney-holder and moreover, the third petitioner, as the power-of-attorneyholder of the land owners, appeared in person on the date specified in the notices and received the compensation by cheque under protest. Thus, petitioners say that the compensation amount was received only under protest indicating the insufficiency of the amount awarded. According to Mr. Chitambaresh, receipt of money under protest in the circumstances itself is sufficient and more to have the matter referred under s. 18 of the Act. The objections as well as the conduct of receiving money under protest were made long before the period fixed for reference under S. 18 (2) of the Act. The third petitioner sent a reminder reiterating the request for a reference under S. 18 of the Act. Exts. P7, P8 and P9 dated 16. 12. 1996 are the reminders sent by the third respondent. They refer to the objections already filed for reference and also the compensation amount received under protest. However, the second respondent seems to have thought that the reminders are the requests for reference and it is filed out of time. Such a stand taken by the second respondent, according to the petitioners, would defeat the very object of the Act causing injury to the land owners. Therefore, they have filed the present Original Petition to issue a writ of mandamus directing the Special tahsildar, Land Acquisition, Palakkad to refer the matter covered by Exts. P4 to P6 notices to the Land Acquisition Court under S. 18 of the Act and call for the records relating to land acquisition of the land belonging to them to verify the receipt of compensation amount under protest warranting a reference.

(3.) S. 12 (2) notices were received by the petitioners on