Bhagwan Dass vs The State

Jai Singh Sekhon, J.—This civil revision as well as Civil Revision No. 1725 and 1726 of 1980 shall be disposed of by this order as these involve the same controversy and are directed against the orders of the Land Acquisition Collector, dismissing the applications of the landowners for making references u/s 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter called the Act), to the Court of the District Judge, Ambala Cantt.

Briefly stated, the facts are that some land belonging to the Petitioners located in the area of village Rohat was acquired by the State of Haryana for public purposes at public expense i.e for setting up a Fish Seed Farm. The Land Acquisition Collector awarded some compensation of the acquired land to the Petitioners vide his award dated 30th December, 1975. Being aggrieved against the adequacy of compensation of their land, all these Petitioners, and sought reference u/s 18 of the Act by moving applications, dated 5th February, 1976 & 21st January, 1976. The Land Acquisition Collector vide impugned order dated 31st March, 1980, refused to make references u/s 18 of the Act to the District Judge, by holding that the acceptance of the compensation without protest barred them for claiming such references under the provisions of Section 31 (2) of the Act. Being aggrieved against the said order, all the three Petitioners have knocked the door of this Court on revisional side

Mr. R.P. Dahiya. learned Counsel for the Petitioner, by placing reliance on a Full Bench of this Court in Sher Singh v. Union of India A I.R 1968 P&H. 107, contended that the filing of application for making reference amounted to a protest and the factum that no such protest was lodged while accepting compensation is of no consequence. Mrs. Abha Rathore, learned Counsel for the State of Haryana, on the other hand, maintained that the ratio of the above referred Sher Singh''s case is not applicable to the facts of the case in hand, as the compensation was-accepted by the Petitioners without protest on 30th December, 1975, while the applications for making reference u/s 18 of the Act were filed later on. In support of her contentions, she has placed reliance on the findings of a Full Bench of this Court in The The State of Punjab Vs. Smt. Harcharan Kaur, , as well as on the findings of this Court in Sardara Singh and Anr. v. State of Punjab 1970 C.L.J 68, and in Jaswant Singh Vs. State of Punjab,

A perusal of the record shows that all these Petitioners had accepted compensation of their respective acquired lands on 30th December, 1975 without protest, whereas Bhagwan Dass Petitioner filed application for making reference u/s 18 of the Act on 21st January, 1976, while the Petitioners in the other two petitions on 5th February, 1976. Under these circumstances, the acceptance of compensation without protest on an earlier date would certainly attract the mischief of second proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 31 of the Act, which clearly bars a person from filing a reference u/s 18 of the Act after he had received the compensation without protest. The wording of Section 18(1) of the Act also makes it clear that any person interested who has not accepted the award may, by written application to the Collector, require that the matter regarding the measurement of land or the amount of the compensation or the apportionment of the compensation be referred to the Court for determination. This view it supported by the decision of this Court in Sardara Singh''s case (supra), wherein it was held that there is a positive bar to a reference if the amount had been accepted without protest under the provisions of Section 31(2) Second Proviso of the Act. It was further held that even if such reference is made to the Court of the District Judge in ignorance of that provision, Section 20(b) clearly gives jurisdiction to the Court to non-suit the claimant if he has accepted the amount awarded without protest A similar controversy again came under the scrutiny of this Court in Jaswant Singh''s case (supra), wherein the landlord had accepted the compensation without protest through a cheque. It was held that even acceptance of compensation through a cheque without raising any protest would operate as bar for claiming compensation u/s 18 of the Act in view of the Second Proviso to Section 31 (2) of the Act. Again, the Full Bench of this Court in Smt. Harcharan Kaur''s case (supra), reiterated the same view by holding that the Court can dismiss or decline the reference u/s 18 of the Act, on the ground that the applicant has accepted the Collector''s award by receiving the payment of compensation without protest.

The findings of Full Bench of this Court in Sher Singh''s case (supra) are not attracted to the facts of the case in hand, as therein it was held that the filing of an application for making a reference u/s 18 of the Act by the landowner would itself amount to a protest or dissatisfaction with the award of the Collector in those cases where the compensation was received later on even without such protest.

For the foregoing reasons, there being no merit in the civil revisions, the same are hereby dismissed, but the parties are left to bear their own costs in view of the peculiar circumstances of the case. The parties if so desire can have recourse to the provisions of Section 28-A of the Act in accordance with law.