PITCHAI Vs. THE COLLECTOR OF MADURAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE only question that arises for consideration in this writ petition, is whether the petitioner received the compensation amount on 3rd November, 1966, under protest or not. On the basis that he received the amount under protest, the petitioner has filed this writ petition asking for the issue of a writ of mandamus directing the respondent to make a reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, (hereinafter referred to as the Act).

(2.) A land belonging to the petitioner was acquired under the Act and an award was passed on 26th September, 1966. From the records it is seen that the petitioner received the 'C' form cheque on 3rd November, 1966. On 28th November, 1966, the petitioner wrote to the Acquisition Officer, stating that the compensation was low and that a reference might be made under Section 18 of the Act. There was no reply to that communication. The petitioner, through his Advocate, repeated the request on 22nd April, 1968 stating that if the matter was not referred, he would be compelled to take legal action. The respondent received the notice on 23rd April, 1968 and sent a reply on 1st July, 1968, stating that no reference would be made because the amount had been received by the petitioner without protest. It is in these circumstances, the writ petitioner has come forward with this writ petition, alleging that he received the amount only under protest. The respondent disputes the fact that the petitioner received the amount under protest.

(3.) ON behalf of the petitioner, reliance was placed on a decision of this Court in Kamalam v. The Special Tahsildar, (1965) 78 L.W. 688, in which the scope of the protest under Section 31 of the Act was considered. Veeraswami, J., as he then was, who delivered the judgment on behalf of the Bench, observed at page 690 as follows: