STATE OF PUNJAB Vs. HARCHARAN KAUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Patiala and East Punjab States Union published a notification dated April 14, 1954, in the Patiala arid East Punjab States Union Government Gazette dated April 25, 1954, under the provisions of Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act No. 1 of I894, (here in after called the Act) which had been extended to that State by the Patiala end East Punjab States Union Land Acquisition Act, 1953, wherein it was stated that the land mentioned in the notification was likely to be required to be taken by Government at public expense for a public purpose, namely, for construction of roads in notified area No. 1 and that any person interested, who had any objection to the acquisition of any land, should file his objection within 30 days of the publication of the notification before the Collector, Patiala district. A notification under Section 6 of the said Act was published on March 29, 1955, which was later on superseded by notification dated September 30, 1955. Under these notifications, the land of Shri Bhagwan Singh Grewal was acquired. The Collector made his award under Section 9 of the said Act on March 14, 1956, and on the next day, that is, March 15, 1956, he received the amount of compensation without making any protest vide receipt Exhibit R. W. 1/a of that date. On April 24, 1966, Shri Bhagwan Singh Grewal made an application lor reference under Section 18 of the Act which was forwarded by the Collector to the Court of the District Judge on April 30, 1956. A notice of that reference was issued to the State of Pepsu through the Collector, Patiala, who filed his reply dated August 11, 1996. On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed:-1. Is the application for reference made within time?

(2.) HAS the petitioner accepted the compensation amount without any protest and hence this reference is not competent?

(3.) HAS the petitioner not been awarded adequate compensation and, if so, what it should be? 2. The case was then adjourned to September 13, 1956, for the evidence of the claimant. Since Bhagwan Singh did not produce any evidence on that date, the District Judge, Patiala, dismissed the reference for non-prosecution. Against that order, an appeal (F. A. O. 13 of 1957) was filed in this Court which was accepted by R. P. Khosla, J. , on April 27, 1959, and the case was remitted back to the District, Judge for decision in accordance with law after allowing the parties an opportunity to lead necessary evidence in support of their respective contentions. From the order of R. P. Khosla, J. , it appears that Bhagwan Singh died on or about January 15, 1957, and his widow Smt. Harcharan Kaur got herself impleaded as his legal representative. In the meantime, the merger of the States of Pepsu and Punjab took place with effect from November 1, 1956, and the State of Punjab defended the case thereafter. The learned District Judge recorded the evi- dence of the parties and accepted the reference by order dated October 20, 1959, by deciding all the issues in favour of the claimant and enhanced the amount of compensation. Against that decree, the State of Punjaib filed this appeal which came up" for hearing before my learned brethren (Sandhawalia and Suri, JJ.) when the learned counsel for the appellant stated that he did not press the point of limitation and the only objection, pressed was that the reference before the District Judge was not legally competent as the application under Section 18 of the Act had been made by a person who had accepted the award by receiving payment of the compensation without protest. In view of the conflict of authorities, my learned brethren felt that the following question of law should be decided by a larger Bench:-