Jaswant Singh vs State of Punjab

This order will dispose of four connected Civil Revisions Nos. 1227, 1229, 1230 and 1231 of 1970. It is agreed that the decision in Civil Revision No. 1229 will govern the others as well. I will, therefore, refer to the facts of that revision petition.

Jaswant Singh owned agricultural land measuring 3 Kanals 15 Marlas in village Majitha, District Amritsar. This land was acquired by the Punjab Government in April 1969. The Land Acquisition Collector assessed the compensation payable to the landowner. Since he was aggrieved by the rate of compensation, he made an application u/s 18 of the Land Acquisition Act for a reference to the Civil Court.

This application was rejected by the Land Acquisition Collector by means of the impugned order, which reads:

"From a perusal of the award file, it is revealed that the petitioner had accepted the compensation without protest. No reference can be made. Rejected."

3-A. Against this order, the present revision petition has been filed by Jaswant Singh.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Land Acquisition Collector was wrong when he observed in the impugned order that the petitioner had accepted the compensation without protest.

In order to verify this contention, the records of the case were sent for. They, however, reveal that the statement made by the learned Collector was correct. The register, in which payments to the various landowners have been entered, shows that the petitioner had accepted the compensation amount without protest. In the case of those landowners, who accepted the compensation under protest, it has been so mentioned in that register. That being so, it cannot be held that the petitioner had accepted the compensation amount under protest.

It was then submitted by the learned counsel that the petitioner had been given the compensation amount not in cash but by a cheque. According to him, when such a payment is made by a cheque, it cannot be said that the mere receipt of the cheque without protest amounted to receipt of compensation without protest. In this connection, he made a reference to a Bench decision of the Mysore High Court in K. Krishna Rao v. Land Acquisition Officer and Revenue Divisional Officer, Coondapur, South Kanara AIR 1960 Mys 264.

There is no merit in this contention. The facts in K. Krishna Rao''s case AIR 1960 Mys 264 were quite different. There it had been found as a fact that the claimant had not encashed the cheque and thus received the amount of compensation.

Second proviso to Section 31(2) of the Land Acquisition Act says:

"Provided also that no person, who has receive the amount otherwise than under protest shall be entitled to make any application u/s 18".

In order that this proviso should come into play, it has to be shown that the claimant had received the amount of compensation otherwise than under protest.

In the present case, it is not the position taken by the petitioner that he had not received the amount of compensation.

The result is that this petition fails and is dismissed. Since the respondent is not represented before me, there will be no order as to costs.

Petition dismissed.