M KARUNAMURTHY Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Aggrieved by the proceedings dated 7.12.2002 of the third respondent refusing to refer the requisition of the petitioner to Civil Court under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act (for brevity "the Act") for fixation of higher compensation, the petitioner seeks a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records from the third respondent in his proceedings dated 7.12.2002 and quash the same and to consequently direct the fifth respondent to make a reference under Section 18 of the Act to Sub-Court, Vellore for the purpose of determinng the market value of the petitioner's lands comprised in Survey No.84/2-A measuring 537 Sq.ft., in survey No.90 measuring 9228 sq.ft. And in survey No.88/1 measuring 1073 sq.ft.

(2.) The learned counsel for the petitioner placing reliance on the decision of this Court in M.P.PALANI AND OTHERS Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU & OTHERS reported in 1999 WLR 760 contends that the statement of the land owner during the award enquiry asking for higher compensation itself be treated as an application for reference. In the said decision, it is also made clear that if the compensation was received under protest, in such cases it has to be treated as an application for reference.

(3.) In the instant case, the learned counsel for the petitioner fairly states that the petitioner did not receive the compensation under protest. On the other hand, the admitted case of the petitioner is that even though the petitioner claimed higher compensation at the award enquiry, he has not filed any document to that effect. In this regard, it is apt to refer Section 18 of the Act, which reads as follows: