RAM PAIRY Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS order of mine will dispose of five connected revision petition Nos.5057 to 5061 of 2006 against the order dated 18.05.2006, passed by Land Acquisition Collector-cum-Additional Chief Administrator, P.U.D.A., Jalandhar.

(2.) ARGUMENTS heard. Record perused. The reference has been declined merely on the ground that the petitioners had accepted the award without raising any protest, therefore, the references were not maintainable. Secondly the Land Acquisition Collector could not find any documentary evidence in support of the claim for enhancement and thirdly, the people of the area present at the spot did not raise any objection regarding the rates fixed by the District Level Price Fixation Committee.

(3.) WHAT appears to be plain or principle and the language of the statute has also the weight of precedent in its favour. It has been so opined in Shanta Bai v. Special Deputy Collector, Land Acquisition, Hyderabad, A.I.R. 1971 Andhra Pradesh 117, Tara Chand v. Land Acquisition Collector, Delhi (Shahdara), Delhi, A.I.R. 1971 Delhi 116; and by the Division Bench in The Collector Jabalpur and another v. Kamal Kumar Jain and others, A.I.R. 1973 Madhya Pradesh 288, and within this jurisdiction in Mukhtiar Singh v. The State of Punjab, 1980 R.L.R. 97 (= 1980 P.L.J. 4). Undoubtedly, there is, however, a discordant note struck by Banerjee J., sitting singly in Suresh Chandra Roy v. The Land Acquisition Collector, Chinsurah, A.I.R. 1964 Calcutta 288. This, however, has been considered and not followed in Kamal Kumar Jain's case (supra). For the identical reasons, I would respectfully record my dissent therefrom." 4. It is manifest from the above that statute does not in any way laid down the precise time or the reference made regarding the protest. This, therefore, is necessarily a matter of legal inference. A land owner preferred a reference under Section 18 of the Act in essence dispute compensation awarded and protest against the same. Consequently, the receipt of compensation by him long after presentation of application under Section 18 of the Act cannot possibly be deemed as a waiver or withdrawal of his earlier claim of enhancement. Filing a reference application under Section 18 itself a recorded protest during the provisions of Section 31(2) of the Act. In case Basant Kumar Jena and another v. State of Orissa and another AIR 1995 Orissa 288 it was observed that law does not require the protest to be in writing. To hold so would amount to rewriting the provision. Written protest, of course, is the best proof. Oral protest may be difficult to substantiate, but is permissible in law.