PATEL VASHRAM GOPALBHAI Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rule. Mr. Hawa waives service of the rule. By consent the rule is heard today.

(2.) In this petition the main prayer is for referring the matter to the Court under Sec. 18 of the Land Acquisition Act for getting enhanced compensation. The prayer for reference was rejected by the Collector concerned on the ground that the petitioner has without any demur accepted the award and as such no reference is possible under Sec. 18 of the Act. Mr. Patel learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners states that there was an oral objection and that said protest was made before the Officer concerned before accepting the award and that the question as to whether there was an objection or not has to be decided by the Court to which reference under Sec. 18 be made. In order to strengthen the case of the petitioner herein Mr. Patel read Annexure C to the petition wherein paragraph 3(2) it is stated as follow:

(3.) The question as to whether such a protest was made or not according to Mr. Patel has to be decided by the District Court to which the reference will be made under Sec. 18 and this question according to Mr. Patel was decided by this Court in the case of Rabari Mahadev Amra v. Prant Officer Radhanpur [1979] 20 GLR 760. No doubt in this case a single Judge of our High Court has considered the propriety of the trial Judge while rejecting the reference on the ground that the protest was not in writing. In that decision the learned Judge has referred to the Full Bench decision of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in The State of Punjab v. Smt. Harcharan Kaur AIR 1975 P. & H. 66. In that decision the Punjab and Haryana High Court has fairly stated as under: