M LINGA MUITHY Vs. DT SOCIAL WELFARE OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant is the claimant. Land in an extent of Act 2.52cents of Jammalamadugu village was acquired by publishing a notification under Section

(2.) It is well-settled position of law that a claimant is entitled to receive the compensation amount awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer either with or without protest. In case he receives the amount under protest, he is entitled under law to lay an application for reference under Section 18 (1) to the civil court within the limitation prescrided under the Act. In case he receives the amount without protest and makes an application for reference, then it is open to the Land Acquisition Officer either to make or refu.se to make a reference. In a case where the Land Acquisition Officer refuses to make a reference, the appropriate remedy open to the claimant is to approach this court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and then assail the legality of the order. In case the Land Acquisition Officer makes a reference to the civil court, it would not be open to him subsequently to raise the plea that the reference itself is bad, provided the conditions precedent to make an application under Section 18 (1) are fulfilled, i.e. (i) an application in writing; (ii) nature of the objection and (iii) within the time. This legal position is settled by the Supreme Court in Hasruddin vs. State of Maharashtra Therefore, the contention of Sri Rajanna, learned Government pleader that the reference itself is bad and that the civil court is justified in making the 'nil' award is clearly not warranted. It does not lie in the mouth of the Land Acquisition Officer to take the stand that making a reference under Section 18 (1) is bad.

(3.) Another facet of the argument is that since the Land Acquisition Officer made a reference under Section 18 (1), he is prevented from raising the statutory defence open to him under Section 25 of the Act. No doubt, preceding the Amendment Act, 1984, an application to make a claim pursuant to notices under Sections 9 and 10 is mandatory and alter the amendment came into force, it is no longer a necessary condition and no longer is a formidable objection that stands in the way of the claimant. But preceding the amendment, this statutory defence was open to the Land Acquisition Officer to be raised. Therefore, it is always open to the Land Acquisition Officer to raise that defence. Therefore, Sri Ashok, the learned counsel for the appellant is not justified in contending that it is not open to the Land Acquisition Officer to raise the objection under Section 25 after making a reference under Section 18 (1).