S SADHU SINGH Vs. GURU NANAK UNIVERSITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) An award was made by the Sub-Divisional Officer (C) exercising the powers of the Land Acquisition Collector, Amritsar on 28th March, 1972. The petitioner had claimed compensation which was also determined in the said award. As he felt aggrieved by the award he filed an application under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter to be called the Act) on 15th May, 1972. This application was dismissed by the Land Acquisition Collector on two grounds. Firstly, that the application had been filed after the expiry of 42 days though he was present when the award was announced and, secondly, that he had accepted the amount of compensation without protest. The present revision petition is directed against this order.

(2.) According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner was not present at the time when the award was announced and, therefore, under Section 18 of the Act the application can be filed within six months from the date of the award and as such the application was within time. I have perused the award. From the same it is not possible to conclude that the petitioner was present at the time when the award was made. On the other hand, at the end of the award it is specifically mentioned that intimation be sent to the parties under Section 12(2) of the Act. This shows that the award had been announced in the absence of the parties. Consequently, this finding of the Land Acquisition Collector that the award had been announced in the presence of the petitioner cannot be upheld. Admittedly, the application was made within six months of the date of the award, and was thus filed within time.

(3.) So far as the second finding is concerned, it is admitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner accepted payment of the amount of compensation without making any protest or raising any objection. His only plea is that as the petitioner was not present at the time of announcement of the award, so he was not aware as to how the amount of compensation had been determined and he could not make up his mind at the time the compensation was paid to him whether the amount of compensation was correctly assessed. This plea on the face of it has no merit. The petitioner must have filed objection before the Collector before the award was made claiming amount of compensation. If the amount of compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Collector had been less than the claim preferred by the petitioner, obviously he must be aware of the same at the time he received the amount of compensation. If he felt aggrieved it was his duty to indicate at the time that he was accepting the compensation under protest. A combined reading of Section 18 and Section 31(2), second proviso, makes it clear that the application under Section 18 of the Act must satisfy two essential conditions. Firstly, it must be filed within time and, secondly, the amount of compensation should have been either not accepted or accepted under protest. If either of these two conditions is not fulfilled, the petition cannot be entertained. In the present case, as discussed above, though the petition was within time, yet the amount of compensation was accepted by the petitioner without protest. Consequently, the petition was not maintainable and the same was rightly dismissed by the Land Acquisition Collector. Hence, there is no merit in the revision petition and the same is dismissed with costs.