KHAJA SK. CHOOTA Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE important question posed in this First Appeal is whether the claimant is entitled to enhanced compensation in an application under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, when he has not recorded the protest at the time of receiving the compensation amount of the land acquired by the State Government. The facts, which give rise to this question are as under: The Government acquired lands at Roze Bagh, Aurangabad, for the City and Industrial Development Corporation (hereinafter referred to as 'the Corporation') and for that purpose, the Government issued necessary notifications under Section 4 and Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act and Section 126 of Maharashtra Regional Town Planning Act. The Notification under Section 6 was issued on 14th October, 1973, under which survey No. 10 of Roze Bagh was acquired. The claimant Sk. Khaja Sk. Choota had his house No. 10.11. I, situated in this survey number and he had constructed a house comprising of four rooms on the plot No. 41/11, situated in the above survey number. According to the claimant/petitioner, the house comprised of four rooms and one big hall and the said house had envious situation of having College and other important institutions and Offices around. The structure comprised of cement and mortar, having doors and windows and ventilators fixed therein. The roof of the house was made of wooden beams and rafters. In view of notification under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, the appellant laid claim for Rs. 25,000/ - as compensation for his house. The compensation for the land could not be preferred as the title thereof was under dispute and that is a subject matter of other proceedings. Under the award dated 19.11.1976, the compensation of Rs. 9,292/ was awarded in respect of house by the Acquiring Body. For that purpose, the notices under Sections 9 and 12(2) of the Land Acquisition Act (for brevity hereafter 'the Act') were served on the claimant/appellant. It is contended that the said claim was accepted under protest and this was followed by making an application to the Collector to refer the claim to the District Court as required under Section 18 of the Act for enhancement of compensation. The said Land Reference was forwarded to the Court and the same was registered as Land Acquisition Reference No. 2/79.

(2.) THE respondent/Government appeared and opposed the petition on the ground that though the notices under Sections 9 and 12 of the Act were served on the appellant, he did not lodge protest in writing as contemplated under the Act and hence, he could not be awarded any compensation more than that what was given under the award. It was also contended that since the compensation was not received under protest and since some of the items of structure were removed by the appellant/claimant, his claim for enhancement could not be entertained.

(3.) BEING aggrieved by this dismissal of the claim, the appellant/claimant has preferred this First Appeal and the main plank of attack in this appeal is that, the appellant/claimant had lodged necessary protest, both in response to the notices issued under Section 9 and Section 12 of the Land Acquisition Act. As regards protest under Section 9 of the Act, it was contended that his statement was recorded by the Acquiring Authority and that was enough compliance under Section 9 of the Act. Regarding the acceptance of amount under protest in response to notice under Section 12(2) of the Act, it was contended that filing of application for reference by the Collector to the Court was itself the compliance of Section 31(2) second proviso of the Act and for these reasons, the technical objections, on which his claim for enhancement has been rejected by the learned District Judge, should be overruled and this Court should award the compensation claimed in the reference.