CHANAN SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the order of the learned District Judge, Ropar, dismissing the reference of the claimant under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as, the Act) on the ground of estoppel as he had accepted the compensation but without indicating whether the compensation was accepting under protest or not. It is an admitted case of the parties that Chanan Singh claimant had received the compensation of the acquired land from the Collector through cheque on the day the award was pronounced i.e. on 17.3.1972. The Land Acquisition Collector had initially declined to forward his reference in view of the provisions of Sections 18 and 31(2) of the Act. Chanan Singh then filed Civil writ Petition No. 1660 of 1978 before this Court which was accepted on the ground that the Collector had not given any opportunity of hearing the claimant before declining his reference. The Collector concerned then recorded the evidence of the claimant but again dismissed the application for making a reference under section 18 of the Act. By the time aforesaid Chanan Singh had died and his legal heirs Karnail Singh and Sadhu Singh again filed civil revision No. 2110 of 1984 before this Court which was accepted and the Collector was directed to make a reference to the District Judge under Section 18 of the Act. Accordingly the reference was made and the learned District Judge framed the preliminary issue whether the claimant had received the compensation of the acquired land without protest. After considering the evidence recorded by the Land Acquisition Collector in pursuance of the direction of the High Court in civil revision No 2110 of 1981 and affording opportunity to the State to lead evidence, the learned District Judge dismissed the reference by holding that the landlord had accepted the compensation without protest.

(2.) I have heard Mr. R.S. Bindra, Advocate, assisted by Miss Renu Bala, Advocate, learned counsel for the appellant, and Mr. K. P. Bhandari, learned Advocate General, Punjab, assisted by Mr. Ravi Kappor, Advocate, for the respondent, and have perused the record.

(3.) The mere factum of accepting the compensation by Chanan Singh, claimant, without indicating in writing that it is being accepted without protest would not amount to estoppel or waiver as envisaged in sub-section (2) of Section 31 of the Act especially when he had moved the application for making a reference under Section 18 of the Act on 17.4.1972 i.e. well within the period of limitation prescribed under Section 18 of the Act. The Division Bench of Himachal Pradesh High Court in Lachhman Dass v. State of Himachal Pardesh and another, 1988 AIR(HP) 39, had also taken the view that the consent in writing should specifically indicate that the claimant had accepted the award without protest in order to operate as estoppel or waiver under the provisions of sub-section (2) of Section 31 of the Act.