MAJ GURCHARAN SINGH KONDAL Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This judgment shall dispose of R.F.A. No. 748 of 1984 and also R.F.A. No. 749 of 1984 as these relate to the same acquired land, although the present appeal relates to the compensation of the acquired land, while the connected appeal pertains to the assessment of compensation of trees and well existing on the same acquired land.

(2.) In brief, the facts are that vide notification published on 31st August, 1970 under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter called the Act), the State of Punjab sought to acquire land measuring 7.67, acres located in the revenue estate of village Kotli Nangal, Had Bast No. 334, Tehsil Gurdaspur at public expence for public purpose i.e. for setting up a Canal Colony for providing residential accommodation for the staff of Madhopur and Gurdaspur Divisions of Upper Bari Doab Canal at Gurdaspur. The Land Acquisition Collector vide his parent award on 31st March; 1971, awarded compensation of the acquired land at the rate of Rs. 32,000/- per acre, besides allowing 15% solatium over and above the said compensation on the basis of the statement of Shri Gurcharan Singh claimant, to the effect that he was willing to accept Rs. 200/- per Maria compensation of his land. The claimant being aggrieved against the area comprising in one acre sought reference under section 18 of the Act vide his application dated 12th May, 1971. It appears that the claimant received the compensation of the acquired land on that very day through cheque No. 291663/002917 dated 31st March, 1971. The collector declined to forward the reference to the court of District Judge, Gurdaspur on the ground of claimant having received the compensation amount without protest. The Land Acquisition Collector gave a supplementary award on Ist September 1975, awarding compensation of Rs. 1500/- for the well existing on the acquired land, besides Rs. 715/- as compensation for the trees growing thereon. "Being dissatisfied with the adequacy of the compensation of the well and trees, the claimant sought reference under section 18 of the Act on 12th September, 1975 before the Collector. The Collector, however, forwarded this reference to the Court of the District Judge, Gurdaspur. The landowner then filed Civil Writ Petition No. 5885 of 1974 Mr. G.S. Kondal v. State of Punjab and others which was ultimately accepted on 28th September, 1982, and the Land Acquisition Collector was directed to make reference under section 18 of the Act regarding the area of acquired land to the Court of the District Judge, Gurdaspur. Accordingly, the Collector also forwarded that reference to the said Court. The learned District Judge vide his impugned award, dismissed the claim of the claimant regarding the enhancement of the compensation of the acquired land by holding that his conduct in accepting its compensation without protest on the basis of his statement amounted to waiver for claiming higher compensation, although the filing of application under section 18 of the Act on 12th May, 1971 was held to be within time. Regarding the reference arising under the supplementary award pertaining to the compensation of the well and the trees, the compensation awarded by the Collector was upheld due to lack of evidence.

(3.) I have heard Mr. Manmohan Singh learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Ravi Kapur, learned counsel for the respondent-State. The perusal of the award of the Land Acquisition Collector rendered on 31st January, 1971 leaves no doubt that after discarding the sale transaction exhibiting the market value of small pieces of land at Rs. 400/- per Marla he had accepted the statement of the landowner to the effect that he is prepared to accept Rs. 200/- per Marla as compensation of the acquired land. The Land Acquisition Collector keeping in view that the acquired land was virtually situated in the city and near the Canal office, awarded its compensation by creating it having a better potential than the other agricultural land, but awarded compensation at the rate of Rs. 32,000/- per acre, obviously by treating that a Kanal comprises of 20 Marlas and there are 8 Kanals in one Acre. The perusal of the certified copy, Ex. R.2 of the statement whereby the landowner had accepted the compensation through a cheque on that day of the pronouncement of the award i.e. 31st March, 1971 reveals that he has been paid compensation regarding the land measuring 71 Kanals 4 Marlas. The landowner was not expected to calculate the gross amount of compensation which also included the solatium at the rate of 15%. Under these circumstances, the mere acceptance of the cheque regarding this comepenation would not amount to waiver on the part of the landowner regarding the area of his Acquired land although the statement made by him would certainly estop him from claiming more compensation than at the rate of Rs. 200/- per Marla. The conduct of the landowner in filing the application for making a reference on " 12th May 1971 regarding the above referred grouse of area also leads to the similar conclusion. Even though the findings of the Full Bench of this Court in Sher Singh v. Union of India, 1982 PunLJ 494, relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellant to the effect that filing of a valid application under section 18 of the Act for a reference must be deemed as a protest against the compensation awarded and that subsequence acceptance of compensation without protest would not bar the claim for enhancement of compensation, as the statute does not lay the precise time or mode of recording protest, are not attracted to the fact of the case in hand, as herein the application for reference was moved after the acceptance of compensation without protest, but all the same in view of the above referred findings of fact it can be well said that the reference under section 18 of the Act was maintainable and the findings of the District Judge to the contrary are here by set aside.