MAHADEV AND ORS. Vs. STATE AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Since the controversy involved in all these writ petition is common, the facts of the S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.3218/2003 are taken note of for deciding all the writ petitions.

(2.) The writ petition (3218/03) has been filed challenging the order dated 22.6.2002 passed by the Land Acquisition Officer, who has declined the request of the petitioners to make a reference to the Civil Court for enhancement of compensation under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 on the premise that even though, petitioners filed application for making reference within limitation prescribed by Section 18 of the Act, but received the amount of compensation without any protest. The land holder whose land is acquired and who accepted the compensation, is not entitled to request for making the reference under Section 18 of the Act for enhancement of compensation.

(3.) Shri Sudesh Bansal, learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the award in the present case was passed on 5.5.1994 and notice for publication of award was received on 20.8.1994 and the petitioners filed application for making reference on 12.9.1994 under Section 18 for enhancement of compensation. The application of the petitioners was thus filed within the period of six weeks from the date of award, which is the limitation period provided by proviso (a) to sub-section (2) of Section 18 of the Act. In fact, when the Land Acquisition Officer required the respondent-Housing Board to file reply to the said application, they expressed that no reply was required to be filed. It is contended that since passing of the formal order of making reference was taking time, petitioners in between submitted an application before the Land Acquisition Officer in writing by letter dated 22.9.1994 submitted that in such matters, reply of Housing Board was not required. Petitioners submitted the application to the Officer on Special Duty, who is also working as Land Acquisition Officer in the department of Urban Development and Housing that since the award has been passed and the application for reference has been filed, the petitioners be paid the compensation under protest. Learned counsel has submitted that the petitioners have signed the proforma of receipt dated 14.12.1996 (Annexure-6) in which there were certain blank columns in the printed proforma of receipt and those columns were filled in. However, most of the petitioners, being illiterate had put their thumb impressions. It is therefore contended that when already the petitioners had filed the application for making reference wherein they also submitted that whatever compensation is awarded may be paid under protest, their are not writing 'under protest' on the proforma receipt should not be taken to defeat their application for reference. The order rejecting the application of the petitioners for reference is therefore perverse and the impugned order dated 22.6.2002 deserves to be set aside.