DEPUTY COLLECTOR REVENUE KARAIKAL Vs. ANGELENE DEVADOSS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ appeal is directed against the order of the learned single Judge in W.P. No. 3598 of 1987. The respondents in the writ petition are the appellants in this writ appeal and the petitioner in the writ petition is the respondent in this writ appeal. Convenience suggests that we should refer to the parties as per their array in the writ petition. The petitioner came to this Court by way of the writ petition seeking for a writ of mandamus to the respondents to make a Reference under S. 18 of the La nd Acquisition Act I of 1894, hereinafter referred to ?as the Act?. The fact remains that the petitioner received the compensation amount registering her protest over the quantum of the compensation. The petitioner would claim that she sent a petition for Reference even on 10-4-1985, which would be within the time limit. However this case of the petitioner was not substantiated before the learned single Judge, who dealt with the writ petition. The respondents would say that the application for Reference was received only on 17-6-1986 beyond the time limit. However the learned single Judge took note of the pronouncements, which have spoken in favour of countenancing even the element of protest or dissatisfaction over the compensation as a clear indication for a request to make a Reference to adjudicate the question of appropriate compensation, and in this view, the learned single Judge directed the respondents to make a Reference under S. 18 of the Act regarding the question of payment of enhanced compensation to the petitioner for the acquired land within twelve weeks from the date of the receipt of a copy of the order of the learned single Judge.

(2.) MR. K.S. Ahmed, learned Government Pleader (Pondicherry) for the respondents would submit that S. 18(1) of the Act speaks about ?written application? and the Court should not mellow down the rigor of the set of expressions used in the statutory provision, so as to enable a party, who did not make a written application as such to seek for a Reference. With regard to format for the written application, nothing is prescribed either in the Act or in the Rules framed thereunder. Hence no particular format f or making the written application could be insisted upon for the purpose of making a Reference. Then the question is whether a written endorsement of protest made by the owner of the lauds at the time of the disbursement of the compensation could be construed as a request to make a Reference within the meaning of S. 18(1) of the Act. In Venkatoswami Naidu and others v. The Slate of Madras, rep. by the Collector of Salem 1964 (1) N.L.J. 262, a Bench of this Court consisting of S. Ramachandra Iyer, C.J., and P. Ramakrishnan, J., dealt with a case where there was only a letter expressing the extreme disappointment over the quantum of Compensation and the learned Judges construed that letters as sufficient for the purpose of S. 18(1) of the Act. The judgment of the Bench is brief and yet it is very pertinent. We feel obliged to extract the releuant portion of the judgment as follows: ??.The award was delivered on 22nd September, 1957. Within six weeks therefrom, on 7th October, 1957, the appellants addressed a letter to the Tahsildar and Land Acbuisition Officer expressing their extreme disappointment on the amount fixed as compensation and stating that the amount of condensation, which included the value of the site as well as the standing trees, was very low. The letter which is in Tamil further reads: ?As you have not taken into account our objections and the record produced by us and as you have no included the value of the trees, the amount now determined by you is very low. We hereby make known to you that we are not in a position to accept that amount as compensation.? Readingbetween the lines one can easily see that the appellants did want proper compensation being awarded to them. One can reasonably draw the inference that they wanted the Tahsildar to take appropriate steps to secure that end as otherwise there will be no meaning for that letter at all. In a recent case, Writ Appeal No. 150 of 1963 we had a similar situation. The statement, in a letter to the Tahsildar in that case was that the market value of the land was really higher than what has been estimated. We held that the implication of that letter was that the respondent did not accept the estimate and that he sought for a Reference to Court. In the present case the position is even clearer. The appellants have expreesly stated that they are not accepting the compensation, We have no hesitation in holding that the implication of this letter is that they have asked for a Reference under S. 18 of the Act. In the present case the written endorsement of protes could not be read in futility. Obviously the petitioner had a desire to obtain enhanced compensation. She had expressed that desire by making the written endorsement of protest. On the facts and circumstances of the case, we think it is legitimate to construe the written endorsement of protest as nothing short of a demand for Reference and that should suffice the purpose of S. 18(1) of the Act. MR. K.S. Ahamed, learned Government Pleader (Pondicherry), cited before us the pronouncement in Narayanappa Naidu v. Revenue Divisional Officer, Siva: kasi 1955-1-M.L.J. 105. That pronouncement was on a different point and as such is of no avail to the learned Government pleader (Pondicherry) with regard to the point when we are called upon to decide in the present case. Accordingly, this writ appeal is dismissed as lacking in merits. No costs.