BULANI SWAIN Vs. SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Civil Revision has been filed challenging the order dated 2nd March, 2001 passed by the Special Land Acquisition and Rehabilitation Officer, M.C.I.I. Project, Jobra, Cuttack. An application was moved by the petitioner under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act to refer the matter to the Civil Court for adjudication for higher compensation as her land was acquired by the State Government for Mahanadi Chitratpola island Irrigation Project.

(2.) THE facts leading to the case in a nutshell are as follows; The petitioner was owner in possession of the land bearing khata No. 184, plot No. 206 measuring Ac.0.01 dec. and plot No. 207 measuring Ac.0.01 dec. of mouza Anali. As the land was acquired for Mahanadi Chitratpola Island Irrigation Project of district Jagatsinghpur under Land Acquisition Case No. 18 of 1995 and the oral submission of the petitioner had not been taken into consideration while computing the market price of the land and the award was not disclosed to the petitioner on any day before the payment nor on the day of payment in the camp. The Special Land Acquisition Officer on the date of payment got the signature of the petitioner on some documents without explaining the legal implication of the said documents. The power of attorney holder of the petitioner was present before the Special Land Acquisition Officer to give statement but he did not agree to record his statement so the power of attorney holder filed an affidavit on behalf of the petitioner for appearance of the petitioner before the Land Acquisition Officer and the said affidavit was rejected by opposite party.

(3.) THE learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner filed an application for reference under Section 18 of the Act immediately after receiving the compensation amount and considering the said application the Land Acquisition Officer passed the order without giving her an opportunity of hearing. If any such opportunity would have been given to the petitioner, she would have explained that she has protested at the time of receiving compensation. The very fact that she had filed an application for reference immediately after receiving the compensation clearly shows her intention to protest was implied against the award of the Land Acquisition Officer notwithstanding acceptance of compensation. Law is 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 : (1994)4SCC67 , Ajit Singh v. State of Punjab).