9911796707
|
Home
Issues: Validity of reference under s.18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1890; Entitlement to higher compensation; Validity of objection to compensation; Interpretation of agreement Ex.-B; Legal principles under s.31, s.18, s.19, s.21, and s.23 of the Act.
The Supreme Court considered a case involving a notification under s.4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1890 for the construction of explosive magazines. The Collector made an award, and the appellants received compensation under an agreement (Ex.-B) but later objected to the amount and claimed enhancement under s.18. The matter was referred to a Special Judicial Officer who enhanced the compensation. On appeal, the High Court reversed the decree, holding that the petitioners had agreed to the compensation in Ex.-B. The petitioners argued that their objection to the award post-receiving compensation was valid, citing s.23 of the Act. The Court analyzed the relevant sections of the Act. Section 31(1) mandates the Collector to tender payment of compensation awarded and deposit it in court if not accepted, with a proviso that no person who received the amount without protest can apply under s.18. Section 18(1) allows any interested person who has not accepted the award to seek reference, with specific grounds required under sub-s.(2) and a prescribed limitation. The Collector must make a statement to the court under s.19, which then proceeds to inquire into the objection under s.20 and s.21, limited to the interests of affected persons. Section 23(1) lays down principles for determining compensation. The Court emphasized that receipt of compensation under protest is a prerequisite to making an application under s.18 within the prescribed limitation. The petitioners' claim of lack of knowledge of Ex.-B was deemed an afterthought, as they did not protest upon receiving compensation. The High Court found their oral protest claim contradicted by the written agreement. Additionally, the High Court deemed the compensation rates excessive and reliance on unregistered sale deeds illegal. Ultimately, the Court upheld the High Court's finding that the reference application was not maintainable, dismissing the Special Leave Petition. In conclusion, the Supreme Court's judgment clarified the legal requirements for objecting to compensation under the Land Acquisition Act, emphasizing the necessity of protesting the amount received and the limitations on seeking reference under s.18. The Court also highlighted the importance of adhering to legal principles in determining compensation and the validity of objections raised in such cases.
|
