LACHHMAN DASS Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The land of the petitioner admeasuring 65 Kanals 9 Marlas situate in village Tabba (Jalgran), Tehsil and District Una, was acquired for the purpose of laying the Broad Guage Railway Line from Nangal to Talwara. The acquisition proceedings were initiated by the publication of a notification under S.4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') on October 20, 1984. Under an award made on May 15, 1986, the Land Acquisition Collector, H.P. P.W.D., Hamirpur, offered compensation in the sum of Rs. 3,23,972-00 to the petitioner. The payment was made by means of a cheque.

(2.) The petitioner made an application dated June 18, 1986 (Annexure-'A') which was received by the Land Acquisition Collector on June 26, 1986 seeking a reference to the Court under S.18 of the Act. The application was rejected on January 28, 1987. A communication dated January 29, 1987 (Annexure 'B') was sent to the petitioner by the Land Acquisition Collector conveying the rejection on the ground that the application was not maintainable since the petitioner received the compensation without protest. Hence the present writ petition.

(3.) The original record with respect to the payment of the compensation amount to the petitioner was ordered to be produced for the perusal of the Court and it has been accordingly produced. A register maintained in Form CC which is known as "The Acquintance Roll" is the material record with respect to the payment of compensation amongst others, to the petitioner. The name of the petitioner appears at Sr. No. 24 in Column No. 2 of the said register. Column No. 4 shows that a sum of Rs. 3,23,972/- was paid to the petitioner. In Column No. 5 the petitioner has appended his signature in Urdu and there is the following endorsement below the signature in English : "U. P". On gleaning through the register, it is found that an endorsement in similar terms is made by many other signatories as well. There is no manner of doubt that the endorsement aforesaid indicates that the payment was received by the petitioner "under protest". Even the learned Deputy Advocate General fairly stated that the said endorsement must mean and convey the sense "under protest". Under the circumstances, the rejection of the application of the petitioner on the ground stated in Annexure B must be regarded as having been made under a misconception.