9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Maintainability of the petitions under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. 2. Limitation period for filing applications seeking a reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. 3. Waiver of the right to seek enhancement under Section 18 by accepting compensation without protest. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Maintainability of the Petitions under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India: The respondents raised a preliminary objection claiming that the petitions were not maintainable under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution because the order could be challenged by a revision under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The court overruled this objection, stating that there is no bar in treating the present petitions as a revision under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure or to invoke the Court's power under Article 227. Therefore, the petitions were deemed maintainable. 2. Limitation Period for Filing Applications Seeking a Reference under Section 18: The respondents argued that the applications seeking a reference were barred by time since they were made more than six months after the date of the Award. The court noted that the petitioners were not present when the Award was made, no notice was issued by the Collector under Section 12(2) of the Act, and the applications were made long after the expiry of six months from the date of the Collector's Award. However, the court held that the period of six months should commence from the date on which the petitioners came to know of the Award, citing the Supreme Court decisions in State of Punjab v. Mst. Qaisar Jehan Begum and Raja Harish Chandra Raj Singh v. The Deputy Land Acquisition Officer. Therefore, the court overruled this preliminary objection as well. 3. Waiver of the Right to Seek Enhancement under Section 18 by Accepting Compensation Without Protest: The primary issue was whether the petitioners had waived their right to seek enhancement by accepting the compensation without protest. The second proviso to sub-section (2) of Section 31 states that no person who has received the amount otherwise than under protest shall be entitled to make any application under Section 18. The court considered various precedents, including decisions from the Calcutta High Court, Madras High Court, and Punjab High Court, which had differing views on the necessity of recording protest in the receipt itself. The court concluded that the intention with which the party receives the amount of compensation must be determined by considering the conduct of the party both at the time of actual payment and prior thereto. The court held that the mere omission to repeat the word of protest in the receipt or at the time of payment would not disentitle the claimant to seek enhancement if they had already lodged a protest in their application for payment or in an application seeking a reference. The court found that the petitioners had specifically reserved their right to seek enhancement in their applications seeking payment, thereby not waiving their right despite the unqualified language in the receipts. Conclusion: The court allowed the petitions, quashed the impugned orders, and directed the Land Acquisition Collector to deal with the applications of the petitioners under Section 18(1) of the Act in accordance with law after notice to the petitioners. The petitioners were also awarded costs, with counsel's fee in each petition fixed at Rs. 350. Judgment: Petitions allowed.
|
