PEACE MEMORIAL ASSOCIATION ANANTAPUR Vs. COLLECTOR ANANTAPUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a petition Under Art. 226 of the Constitution for the issue of a writ of Mandamus directing, the 1st respondent to make a reference under Section 18 OR the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter called the Act), to the appropriate Court. The facts relevant for the purpose of this enquiry are that the Government acquired Acs. 1.5 cents of land in connection with the expansion of the Industrial Training institute. The petitioner who claimed himself to be the owner of a portion of that land demanded compensation at the rate of Rs. 500 per cent the land acquistion Officer however by his award dated 5-1-1960 awarded compensation at the rate of Rs. 100.00 per cent, that amount of compensation was issued by the Acquisition authority through a cheque in the name of the petitioner. The petitioner received the cheque on 16-11-1960. The petitioner however received that amount under protest and endorsed on the receipt; "The dispute may kindly be referred to the court of law". In spite of this request the grievance of the petitioner is that the Collector has not made any reference under Section 18 of the Act, to the civil court. It is now sought in this petition mat the respondent should be compelled to reter the dispute to the civil court. The short question which arises for decision is whether the endorsement which the petitioner has made on the receipt requesting the Collector to reter the dispute to the Court of law complies with the requirements of Section 18 of the Act. Section 18 as far as it is relevant for the purpose of this enquiry is in the following terms:

(2.) The next factor which according to the section is required is that the application must be filed within limitation. Undoubtedly the request made by him was well within the limitation. I can see therefore no ground for the Collector to either sleep over the matter or refuse to make any reference. In my judgment the abovesaid request fulfils all the requirements of Section 18 and it cannot be said that the formalities prescribed in section is are not followed in making that request. I am fortified in my conclusion by thw following two decisions: a) Krishnsmal v. Collector of Colmbatore, AIR 1927 Mad 282 b) Provident Investment Co. v. Land Acquisition officer, AIR 1935 Bom 319.

(3.) The result therefore is that the writ petition is allowed. The writ will Issue. The Collector as defined in the Act, i. e., L. A. Officer, the 2nd responded is directed to make a proper reference to the appropriate civil court. In the circumstances of the case I make no order as to costs.