KARNAIL SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) An award No. 238 under the Land Acquisition Act, (hereinafter referred as 'the Act') was made on 17th March, 1972, in respect of the land in village Mataur. Chanan Singh (now deceased) had filed an application dated 12th April, 1972, under Section 18 of the Act, but the Assistant Collector had filed this application on the plea that the claimant had received compensation under the award on 17th March, 1972, without any protest. Thus in view of the provisions of Section 31(2) of the Act, his application was not forwarded to the District Judge, under Section 18 of the Act. Thereafter the claimant Chanan Singh filed Civil Writ Petition No. 1660 of 1978, in which this Court ordered on 6th Sept., 1978 that since the Collector had given no opportunity of hearing, the case should be decided after the claimant is given an opportunity of hearing. Consequently the claim of Chanan Singh was heard on 7th Mar., 1979 and he also produced five witnesses, whose evidence was recorded on the same day. No rebuttal was produced on behalf of the Punjab State. Meanwhile Chanan Singh claimant died on 15th August, 1979 and his heirs and legal representatives, who are the petitioners, were brought on the record. The learned Collector without discussing the evidence of the witnesses dismissed the application with the following observations:- "4. The above mentioned witnesses deposed in their tutored statements that in spite of protest by the appellant, that Land Acquisition Collector did not write his protests. I have heard the arguments of the learned counsel Shri Iqbal Singh and have gone through evidence, but on seeing the record it is evident that the other persons who received compensation on 17-3-1972 under protest their protest is noted and words "under protest" are written. Therefore, it is wrong that at that time it was not recorded. Hence in view of Section 31(2) of the Act, appellant's appeal is dismissed."

(2.) Dissatisfied with the same the petitioners have come up in revision in this Court.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the order of the Collector is not a speaking one, as the evidence produced by the claimant had not been considered at all. He further contended that the mere fact that the words "under Protest" are not written by the Collector at the time of payment of the compensation on 17th March, 1972, that by itself does not prove that no protest was made. Moreover, there was no rebottle to the evidence produced by the claimant and in these circumstances the Collector has erred in dismissing the application. In support of his contention he referred to Sham Lal v. Ujagar Singh, 1979 Rev LR 560 ; Ram Sarup Basra v. Land Acquisition Collector, 1978 of India, AIR 1976 Delhi 83.