TMI Blog1975 (7) TMI 160X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... either of the Petitioners as required by sub-section (2) of Section 12 of the Act. The Petitioners in both the Petitions came to know of the Award on October 9. 1967 and on the same day, the Petitioners made applications to the Land Acquisition Collector for payment of compensation under protest. It is not in dispute that in all the applications it was mentioned that the Payment of compensation was being sought under protest on the ground that the Petitioners were entitled to higher compensation. These applications are Annexures 'B' and 'C' in one Petition and 'B', 'C' and 'D' in the other. Pursuant to the aforesaid applications, the petitioners were Paid and received compensation on or about May 14. 1968. It is a common case of the parties that the receipts executed by the petitioners did not mention that the payment was being received under Protest. On February 9, 1969 the petitioners sought reference of the matter under Section 18(1) of the Act for determination. The applications were turned down by the Land Acquisition Collector by the order now sought to be impugned, on the ground that in as much as the receipts executed by the petition ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in C. W. 145-D/64, Rup Ram etc. v. The Land Acquisition Collector decided on March 30, 1971. Learned counsel also drew my attention to some of the other decisions in which the question had been considered notably Mrs. Thomas V. the Collector of Madras. Air 1958 Mad 186: Jaswant Singh v. State of Punjab, Smt. Kailash Devi v. State of Haryana. Air 1971 Pun 353 and K. Krishna Rao v. Land Acquisition Officer and Revenue Divisional Officer. Coondapur, South Kanara. Air 1960 Kar 264 and argued that the aforesaid decisions were distinguishable and in any event in so far as they appeared to have taken a contrary view, did not appear to, be good law. 4. Shri Dixit, who appears for the respondents in both the petitions, on the other hand, raised two preliminary objections besides justifying the impugned order on the ground that unless it was specifically mentioned in the receipts or otherwise at the time of receipt of payment that the Payment was being received under protest, the claimants would be deemed to have waived the right to seek a reference in terms of second proviso to sub-section (2) of Section 31. Learned counsel strongly relied on the decision of the Calcutta High Court in Su ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... se where the petitioners were not aware of the Award, from the date on which the petitioners came to know of the Award. There is nothing on the record to indicate that the petitioners were aware of the Award before October 9, 1967 when the various applications for Payment were made. Shri Chopra, however, contends that the last portion of clause (b) of proviso to Section 18(2) must be reasonably construed so as to mean that the period of six months would commence, in case there was no notice of the making of the Award from the date on which the petitioners came to know of the making of the Award and seeks support from two decisions of the Supreme Court in the case of State of Punjab v. Mst. Qaisar Jehan Begum, [1964]1SCR971 and Raja Harish Chandra Raj Singh v. The Deputy Land Acquisition Officer, [1962]1SCR676 . Shri Dixit, however, contends that in as much as there was Public notice both under Sections 4 and 6 of the Act besides the two notifications and the petitioners had throughout been aware of the proceedings, it should be inferred that they had knowledge of the Award even earlier than the date on which they claim to have come to know of it. 7. This contention of Shri Chopr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mpensation and in the receipt granted showing that the disputed amount of compensation money was accepted under Protest. In Mrs. S. Thomas v. The Collector of Madras, Air 1958 Mad 186, it was held that when the owner received the compensation awarded without protest, it must be taken that he accepted the Award. In this case, the protest was not recorded at all and there was no indication that the amount was being either sought or accepted under protest. In Md. Golam Ali Mina v. Land Acquisition Collector, AIR1969Cal221 , the application seeking Payment recorded the protest but the endorsement on the reverse by which the payment was received did not contain any word of Protest. It was held that the receipts must be related to the applications and must be linked with it and it could not be held to be the receipt without protest so as to disentitle the applicants to apply for a reference under Section 18 of the Act. The observations made by the Calcutta High Court. In the earlier case reported as AIR1964Cal283 to the effect that the protest should be endorsed on the receipt itself was held to be an obiter. The aforesaid case was also held to be distinguishable on its facts. Their Lord ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ence was made after the claimant had accepted the compensation without protest. In that case no protest was recorded at any stage whatever. The learned Judge rightly distinguished with respect the decision of the Mysore High Court referred to above. In Tara Chand v. The Land Acquisition Collector, (Delhi Shahdara). AIR1971Delhi116 , Deshpande. J., of this court was concerned with a case in which an application for reference for enhancement had been made prior to the acceptance of the amount and it was held that the application having been made by a date when the claimant had not received compensation, subsequent receipt of compensation would not constitute any waiver so as to disentitle the claimant to take advantage of the application. The learned Judge noticed all the earlier decisions referred to above except the decisions of the Punjab High Court. It was further observed that all that was required to be decided in such a case was whether a person had waived his right to seek a reference under Section 18 expressly or implied1v by such acceptance considering the facts of the case. The learned Judge followed AIR1969Cal221 and distinguished the Madras case and the earlier judgment ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pondents because in view of the observations made in the later Division Bench judgment of that Court, that decision would appear to me to stand overruled. The observations made by the Punjab High Court in Air 1971 Punj 353 appear to me to have been rather widely worded as in the earlier Calcutta case and do not appear to me with respect to represent the true legal position. The other decision referred to above by and large support the view that I have taken of the matter. 12. I have, Therefore, no hesitation in holding that by virtue of the protest recorded by the Petitioners in their applications seeking payment, the Petitioners had specifically reserved their right to seek enhancement and had not waived their right notwithstanding the unqualified language in which the receipt was executed. 13. In the result, the Petitions succeed, the impugned orders are quashed and I direct that the Land Acquisition Collector will deal with the applications of the Petitioners under Section 18(1) of the Act in accordance with law after notice to the Petitioners. 14. The Petitioners would also have their costs. Counsel's fee in each petition is fixed at ₹ 350/ - 15. Petitions ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
