9911796707
TMI Blog1995 (4) TMI 297X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ondents objected to the amount of compensation determined by the Collector and they claimed enhancement by reference under s.18. On August 22, 1989, the Collector asked them to appear before him. On August 29, 1989, on which date when appeared, they requested the Collector for reference under s.18. Accordingly, it was referred to the Special Judicial Officer. Objection was taken to the validity of the reference and also their entitlement to higher compensation. The Special Judicial Officer by his award and decree dated October 29, 1991 enhanced the compensation at the rate of ₹ 60 to 40 per sq.meter. On appeal by the State, the High Court by its judgment and decree dated June 7, 1994 reversed the decree of the reference court and hold ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ation to the Collector, require that the matter be referred by the Collector for the determination of the court, whether his objection be to the measurement of the land, the amount of compensation, the person to whom it is payable, or the apportionment of the compensation among the persons interested. In sub-s.(2) thereof the grounds on which the objection to the award is taken shall be required to be stated. The proviso prescribed limitation within which the application under s.18 should be made. Thereon under s.19 the Collector is required to make the statement to the court in writing with details and in the manner mentioned in s.19. The court shall, thereafter, cause a notice in that behalf served under s.20 on the Collector and persons ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oo one week after the receipt of the compensation without protest. He stated at the enquiry that he signed a blank paper. He admitted that the signature in the joint statement was his but stated that the contents of Ex.-B were not explained to him. The High Court minutely examined the evidence of all the witnesses and concluded that their claim of oral protest is belied by the written agreement Ex.-B. The High Court also has gone into the evidence on merits and found that award of compensation to the paddy fields and other lands at the rates of ₹ 60 to ₹ 40 per sq. meter was highly excessive and reliance upon unregistered sale deeds in relation to other homestead lands was illegal. It is credulous to believe that agricultural la ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
