Research › Browse › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

1997 DIGILAW 204 (HP)

DURGA DASS v. STATE OF H. P.

1997-05-22

A.L.VAIDYA, M.SRINIVASAN

body1997
JUDGMENT M. Srinivasan, C.J. (Oral): The petitioners land was acquired and the award was passed on 10 2.1986 by the Collector. The petitioner applied for making a Reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act to the District Court on 10.3.1986 The Collector rejected the same by his order dated 28 1 1987 on the ground that the petitioner had received the compensation without-protest. The said order was communicated to the petitioner under Mo. LAH/Court case/87-239 dated 29.4.1987. 2. But a Reference was made under Section 18 of the Act to the Civil Court at the instance of certain other land owners and the said Reference was disposed of by the District Judge, Una on 31.10.1987. By the judgment of the District Judge, the compensation was enhanced. After the said judgment. the petitioner approached the Land Acquisition Collector that an application under Section 28-A of the Land Acquisition Act for re-determination, of the amount of compensation on the basis of the award passed by the District Judge, Una. That application was filed by him on 25 1 1.198 7 The petitioner received a communication in No.LAH/CC/88-4915 dated 17 2 1988 informing him that an application under Section 18 dated 10 : 1986 had been rejected earlier in 1987 and the petitioner was informed of the same by letter dated 29.1.1987 and that the rejection was because he had received the payment without protest. 3. The petitioner filed this writ petition on 17.6.1988 praying for quashing ire communications dated 29.1.1987 and 17.2.1988 and directing the Land Acquisition Collector to make a Reference to the learned District Judge. Una for enhancement of the compensation. The second prayer of the petitioner is to direct the Land Acquisition Collector to take appropriate action on the petition filed by the petitioner under Section 28-A of the Act. 4. In the reply filed by the respondent, it is stated in paragraph 3 that application under Section 28-A was rejected as & as the application filed by petitioner for Reference under Section 18 was already rejected and that application under Section 28-A could not be entertained. The reply also justified the rejection of the application for Reference under Section 18 of the Act 5. The reply also justified the rejection of the application for Reference under Section 18 of the Act 5. We have no doubt that the view taken by the Land Acquisition Collector in his letter dated 29.1.1987 that no Reference could be made under Section 18 of the Act as the petitioner had received the payment without protest is erroneous. As a matter of fact, the petitioner has alleged in paragraph 3 of the writ petition that when he received a communication front the Collector to receive the compensation, he made an oral representation that the amount was on the lower side and totally inadequate and, therefore, not acceptable to him. He has also stated that the Land Acquisition Collector did not inform him that he should receive the payment under protest and can apply for enhancement of compensation. He has stated that he is an illiterate and, therefore, he received the payment and his objection was not noted anywhere on the record by the Land Acquisition Collector. 6. In reply, to paragraph 3, the respondent has stated that the objections against the award dated 10.2.1986 were raised before the Land Acquisition Collector, but it could not be ascertained as to when the objections under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act were raised before the Collector to refer to the Civil Court. It is also stated that the said Reference under Section 18 had been rejected by the Collector after considering the facts. 7. Thus, the reply is not categoric in denying the averments made by the petitioner in paragraph 3. However, we need not come to a conclusion on the facts, as alleged by the petitioner, in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court on this question in Ajit Singh & ors. v. State of Punjab & ors.. (1994) 4 S.C.C. 67. The Supreme Court held that the claimants, who had received payments without protest were not debarred by mat reason alone to seek enhancement of compensation under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act Thus, the Court upheld the right of the claimants to file an application for Reference under Section 18 of the Act. (1994) 4 S.C.C. 67. The Supreme Court held that the claimants, who had received payments without protest were not debarred by mat reason alone to seek enhancement of compensation under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act Thus, the Court upheld the right of the claimants to file an application for Reference under Section 18 of the Act. In this case, the application for Reference under Section 18 was filed within a period of one month from the date of the award and the mere fact that the protest of the petitioner was not noted in the records by the Land Acquisition Collector will not dis-entitle the petitioner from seeking such Reference. 8. Consequently, the petitioner is entitled to have a reference made to the Civil Court. We issue a mandamus directing the respondent Land Acquisition Collector to make a Reference under Section 18 of the Act of the claim made by the petitioner for enhanced compensation in the matter. 9. In view of the above said direction, it is unnecessary for us to consider the second prayer of the petitioner for deciding the claim under Section 28-A of the Land Acquisition Act Inasmuch as mere will be a Reference under Section 18 of the Act, the question of application under Section 28 A at the instance of the petitioner will not arise. Hence, the second prayer is negatived on the only ground that it is unnecessary in this case. 10. Consequently, this writ petition is allowed on the above terms. There will be no order as to costs.