9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Maintainability of an application for reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, without proving receipt of payment under protest. 2. Timing of the protest under Section 31(2) of the Act. 3. Necessity of written protest versus oral protest. 4. Inference of protest from the mere filing of an application under Section 18. Detailed Analysis: Issue 1: Maintainability of Application for Reference The court examined whether an application under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act is maintainable without the applicant proving that he received the compensation under protest. The court concluded that, according to the second proviso to Section 31(2), no person who has received the amount otherwise than under protest shall be entitled to make any application under Section 18. This was supported by several precedents, including *Ashwani Kumar Dhingra v. State of Punjab* and *Wardington Lyngdoh v. Collector, Mawkyrwat*. Thus, the receipt of the amount under protest is a condition precedent for making an application under Section 18. Issue 2: Timing of the Protest The court determined that the protest must be lodged at the time of receiving the payment. If a person receives the payment without protest and then subsequently lodges the protest, it would not satisfy the requirement of the Act. However, making a written application for referring the matter to the Court under Section 18 even before receipt of the compensation amount would be indicative of the fact that the applicant had protested regarding the sufficiency of the amount. This view was supported by decisions such as *Suresh Chandra Roy v. Land Acquisition Collector* and *S.M.A. Somasundaram Mudaliar v. District Collector Chittoor*. Issue 3: Necessity of Written Protest The court held that the protest contemplated by the provisos to Section 31(2) can be an oral protest and it is not necessary that the protest should always be in writing. This was supported by various judgments, including *Rabari Mahadev Amra v. Prant Officer* and *Bakshi Ram Jain v. State of Haryana*. The court noted that neither the Act nor the Kerala Land Acquisition Manual prescribed a specific form for the protest. Issue 4: Inference of Protest from Filing an Application The court concluded that if there is neither a written protest nor an oral protest at the time of receiving the compensation, the mere making of an application for reference under Section 18, by itself, would not be sufficient to infer that the claimant must be deemed to have accepted the amount under protest. This was contrary to the observations made in *Ajit Singh v. State of Punjab*. The court emphasized that the making of an application under Section 18 does not, by itself, indicate that the claimant must have lodged the protest when he received the payment. This view was supported by *Wardington Lyngdoh v. Collector, Mawkyrwat* and *Shivabai's case*. Conclusion: The court provided the following answers to the questions: 1. An application seeking a reference under Section 18 is not maintainable unless the applicant proves that he had received the payment under protest. 2. The protest must be lodged at the time of receiving the payment, and a prior application for reference would be sufficient to infer protest. 3. An oral protest is permissible and it is not necessary that the protest should always be in writing. 4. Mere making of an application for reference under Section 18 is not sufficient to infer that the claimant accepted the amount under protest. The petitions were directed to be placed before a learned Single Judge for disposal in accordance with the law.
|
