BULANI SWAIN Vs. LAND ACQUISITION COLLECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision has been filed under section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure read with section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'), challenging the order of the Land Acquisition Collector rejecting the application of the petitioner for making a reference to the Civil Judge (Senior Division), The application has been rejected solely on the ground that the petitioner had received the land acquisition award without protest. In the petition under section 18 of the Act it had been indicated that the award had been received under protest., In the civil revision petition it is stated that the petitioner orally protested at the time of receiving the award. It has been submitted by the counsel for the petitioner that at the time of considering the application under section 18 of the Act, the Land Acquisition Collector did not afford any opportunity of hearing to the present petitioner and if any such opportunity would have been given, the petitioner would have established that he had orally protected at the time of receiving the compensation.

(2.) LAW is now well settled that at the time of deciding the question as to whether a reference can be made or not, principle of natural justice should be followed. (See (Basant Kumar Jena and another v. State of Orissa and another), 1981 83 PLR 183 (Ajit Singh v. Secretary to the Punjab Government) : 1987 91 PLR 403 (Baldev Singh v. The State of Haryana) and Civil Revision No. 213 of 1993 (Supai Munda v. Collector, Cuttack and others) disposed of on 11 -9 -1995. The right to seek a reference under section 18 of the Act is a valuable right of the person whose land has been acquired and in the process of deciding an application seeking a reference to the Civil Court, the basic principles of natural justice are required, to be observed.

(3.) CIVIL revision disposed of.