CHITTI K Vs. SPECIAL DEPUTY COLLECTOR LA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision is directed against the order and decretal order, dated 27-3-1992 passed in LA. No.163 of 1992 in O.P. No.33/1989 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Rajahmundry. By the impugned order, the learned Subordinate Judge rejected the O.P. No.33/1989 referred under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter called Act).

(2.) The lands belonging to the revision-petitioner and some others were acquired for the purpose of construction of Base Complex, Administrative and Technical Offices, Storage Sheds, Work Shops, transport yard, etc., by the Oil and Natural Gas Commission, Rajahmundry. The Land Acquisition Officer after making appropriate enquiry, passed the Award No.7/88, dated 30-6-1988 fixing the compensation for the acquired land at Rs.50,000/- per acre and also granted other benefits under the Act. Not satisfied with the compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer the petitioner and other claimants filed before the Land Acquisition Officer applications under Section 18(2) of the Land Acquisition Act for making reference to the Civil Court for enhancing the compensation amount. On the petition submitted by the petitioner herein, the Land Acquisition Officer referred the case under Section 18 of the L.A. Act and the same has been numbered as O.P. No.33/89. While the matter was pending enquiry, the Land Acquisition Officer filed LA. No.163/92 under Section 151 CPC requesting the Court to reject O.P. No.33/89 on the ground that the petitioner received the compensation amount without any protest. The revision-petitioner filed his counter disputing the averments in the affidavit appended to the petition and also it is stated that the petitioner questioned the adequacy of the compensation granted and received the compensation under protest. This petition had been enquired into along with 9 other petitions and a common order has been passed. As seen from the common order, no oral evidence was adduced on either side in relation to LA. No.163/92 in O.P. No.33/89. The learned Subordinate Judge in para 16 of the common order observes that the reference in O.P. No.33/89 is invalid in view of the entries in the acquittance for the compensation amount in the file, that the claimant received the compensation without protest and as such, the claim of the claimant is barred for enhanced compensation and consequently, reference under O.P. No.33/89 has been rejected. Aggrieved of that order, the claimant has come up with this revision.

(3.) Heard the learned Counsel for the revision-petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Land Acquisition.