RATTAN SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA AND ANR.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) REGULAR First Appeals No. 1241 of 1984 and 1242 of 1984, have been directed against the orders dated April 26, 1984 and R.F.A. NO. 382 of 1985 against the order dated December 5, 1984 passed by the Additional District Judge, Rohtak, declining and dismissing the land references made under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, (hereinafter called 'the Act').

(2.) LAND belonging to the appellant as also other persons, was acquired for public purpose by the State of Haryana. The Land Acquisition Collector, assessed the value of the acquired land as under: -

(3.) AFTER hearing the learned counsel for the appellants, these appeals deserve to succeed. It would be apparent from a casual glance at statement No. 19 which is a document attested by the Land Acquisition Collector that the compensation had been received by the appellants on July 27,1978 under protest. The mere fact that this protest is incorporated in a printed document, does not mean that no protest was made. It is to be highlighted that the Land Acquisition Collector, while exercising his powers as such, is an agent of the Government but he has been conferred with a statutory duty to forward a reference sought by a claimant. In this situation, to hold a note duly recorded by the Land Acquisition Collector, should not be believed as it was a on a printed performa would be to belie the very truthfulness of an official document for no reasons whatsoever. It will also be seen from the oral evidence adduced that the appellant had received the compensation under protest and I find no reason to hold otherwise. It is to be noted that the land acquired in the rural areas is often taken away from persons not fully able to comprehend complicated legal procedures and to hold a rigid view as has been done by the Additional District Judge, would cause serious injustice as even the Additional District Judge while declining the reference has determined under Issue No. 1 that the compensation awarded by the Collector was inadequate and for this reason as well, equity demands that the Court should interfere to set (sic) right.