9911796707
TMI Blog1982 (3) TMI 272X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... warded to the District Judge, under Section 18 of the Act. Thereafter the claimant Chanan Singh filed Civil Writ Petition No. 1660 of 1978, in which this Court ordered on 6th Sept., 1978 that since the Collector had given no opportunity of hearing, the case should be decided after the claimant is given an opportunity of hearing. Consequently the claim of Chanan Singh was heard on 7th Mar., 1979 and he also produced five witnesses, whose evidence was recorded on the same day. No rebuttal was produced on behalf of the Punjab State. Meanwhile Chanan Singh claimant died on 15th August, 1979 and his heirs and legal representatives, who are the petitioners, were brought on the record. The learned Collector without discussing the evidence of the w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... learned counsel for the State argued that it is a question of fact whether the compensation was received under protest or not and the Collector had come to a conclusion that the compensation was not received under protest. Because from the record it is evident that the other persons, who received compensation on 17th March, 1972, under protest, their protest is noted, whereas since no protest was made on behalf of the claimant Chanan Singh, the same was not written on his receipt. In support of his contention he referred to Jaswant Singh v. State of Punjab and State of Punjab v. Smt. Harcharan Kaur. 5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at some length. From the order of the Collector it is quite evident that the evidence p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... herein, in para. 10 thereof, that it is the duty of the Court to decide if an objection is raised by the State to determine whether the applicant had a right to make an application under Section 18 or not. If it comes to the conclusion that the application has been made by a person, who had accepted the award, it must throw out the reference without deciding it on applicant from claiming any enhancement in the compensation awarded by the Collector. Thus it is evident that the District Judge on a reference having been made under Section 18 of the Act, by the Collector, is competent to decide the matter as to whether the amount of compensation was received by the claimant under protest or not. Because in that situation the Proviso to Section ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
