C ARUNACHALAM Vs. SPECIAL TAHSILDAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this revision, the revision petitioners challenge the order of the court below in rejecting the reference made by the first respondent.

(2.) THE land of an extent of 2.62.0 hectares in S.No.1254/2 in Erode Village was acquired and award enquiry was conducted on 5.9.1986 and notice under sections 9(1) and 10 of the Land Acquisition Act was published on 19.8.1996 and individual notices under section 9(3) and section 10 of the Act were also served and one Chenniappa Gounder appeared before the Land Acquisition Officer and expressed his willingness to receive compensation under protest and requested the officer to refer the matter to the court for higher compensation and therefore, the matter was referred under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. It is stated by the legal representatives of the original claimant that the original claimant received the award amount under protest and requested the Acquisition Officer for higher compensation and therefore, there was a valid reference and they are entitled to enhancement of compensation.

(3.) IT is contended by Mr.Prakasam, learned Senior Counsel for the revision petitioners that the lands of the original claimant was acquired and at the time of enquiry, the claimant appeared and protested the award of compensation and requested the Acquisition Officer to refer the matter for enhancement of compensation and therefore, there was an oral request made by the claimant and that request is sufficient and there is no need for any written representation. Further, he submitted that the Special Tahsildar has also recorded that the claimant requested him to refer the matter to the court for higher compensation and therefore, there is a valid reference.