GEBI BAPUJI BANJARI Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application for review of an order passed by A. B. Naik, J on 3-5-2001 dismissing the Civil Revision application filed by the review-petitioner taking exception to the rejection of his application for reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.

(2.) The review-petitioner is a person whose land was acquired for the purpose of expansion of Gaothan. The Land Acquisition officer issued appropriate notification. The review-petitioner had demanded compensation at the rate of Rs. 1 lakh per acre. By an award dated 1-1-1999, the review petitioner was awarded compensation of Rs. 27,388/ -. The amount of compensation was received by the review-petitioner on 1-11-1999. On 10-12-1999, the review-petitioner filed a reference petition before the Land Acquisition Officer under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act for being forwarded to the District Court. The land Acquisition Officer refused to make the reference by observing that the review-petitioner had received the amount of compensation without any protest and, therefore, it was to be presumed that the quantum of compensation awarded was accepted by the review-petitioner. Against this order passed by the Land Acquisition Officer on 16-12-1999, the review-petitioner preferred civil Revision Application, which was numbered as 335 of 2000. The said application was dismissed as stated above by an order dated 3-5-2001, wherein, relying on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of ashwani Kumar Dhingra Vs. State of punjab, reported in AIR 1992 Supreme court 974, A. B. Naik, J. held that the amount of compensation having been received without lodging any protect, the claimant lost his right to seek reference and consequently the order passed by the Land Acquisition Officer was just and proper.

(3.) While seeking review, it is the review-petitioner's case that he had in fact stated in his reference petition as well as the review petition that he had lodged protest before accepting the award. The review-petitioner had also claimed specific sum under section 9 of the Act, which could be sufficient to show that he had not accepted the sum awarded. The review-petitioner relied on a judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Ajit singh and others Vs. State of Punjab and others, reported in (1994) 4 Supreme Court cases 67.