Ramesh Chandra Bhandari vs The State of West Bengal and Others

Hon''ble Mr. Justice Jayanta Kumar Biswas

The petitioner in this WP under art.226 dated August 4, 2006 is questioning an order of the Land Acquisition Collector, South 24-parganas dated January 31,2005 (WP p.62). Relevant parts of the order are quoted below:-

Shri Ramesh Chandra Bhandari the writ petitioner herein is present. Gone through the Hon''ble High Court''s order, perused the documents produced by the petitioner and verified records.

Hon''ble High Court''s direction was in two folds:

(i) Awarded amount is to be paid by the Collector to the petitioner without any prejudice.

(ii) Consideration to transmit reference petition vide u/s 18(2) of W.B. L.A.Act, 1894 to the Ld. Special L.A. Judge, Alipore.

On verification of the record it is seen that the petitioner received awarded money amounting to Rs.1.03,054.94 on 8.11.96.

Regarding issue No. 2 it is seen that the petitioner received awarded amount without making any protest in C.C. Voucher/Acquisition Roll.

According to Section 31(2) of W.B. L.A. Act of 1894 awardee would not be entitled to file reference petition u/s 18(2) when awarded amount was received without protest. Hence, the reference petition is in admissible according to law.

A copy of the petitioner''s application under s.18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 is at p.38. It was received by the office of the Collector on November 6, 1996. This is revealed by the date and seal of the Collector''s office affixed in acknowledge of receipt of the application, and it is also the case stated by the petitioner in para. 7 of the WP that has remained uncontroverted. In para.7 of the WP the petitioner has also stated that he was paid the offered amount of compensation by cheque on November 8, 1996.

The document at p.37 of the WP is a letter of the petitioner to the Collector; it was received by the office of the Collector on November 8, 1996. In the letter the petitioner clearly stated that he agreed to receive the offered amount of compensation without prejudice to his rights and contentions in his application filed under s.18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. It is, therefore, evident that before receiving the offered amount of compensation the petitioner had submitted his s.18 application.

The Collector rejected the s.18 application on the grounds that the petitioner did not record his protest "in C.C Voucher/ Acquisition Roll." No law created the petitioner''s obligation to record his protest in any " C.C Voucher/Acquisition Roll." It is evident that the Collector misinterpreted the provisions of sub-s(2) of s.31 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. Nothing therein created an obligation of the petitioner to record the protest in any particular manner.

The Sub-section(2) of s.31 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 is quoted below:

(2)If they shall not consent to receive it, or if there be no person competent to alienate the land, or if there be any dispute as to the title to receive the compensation or as to the apportionment of it, the Collector shall deposit the amount of the compensation in the Court to which a reference u/s 18 would be submitted:

Provided that any person admitted to be interested may receive such payment under protest as to the sufficiency of the amount:

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

Provided also that nothing herein contained shall affect the liability of any person, who may receive the whole or any part of any compensation awarded under this Act, to pay the same to person lawfully entitled thereto.

The Collector was wrong in holding that the petitioner received the offered amount of compensation without recording protest. The filing of the s.18 application itself amounted to his protest in writing and that fulfilled the requirement of the second proviso to sub-s.(2) of s.31. The petitioner recorded his protest once again on November 8, 1996, and this he did by submitting an application. His reference application satisfied all conditions and hence the Collector could not refuse to refer the matter to Court. For these reasons, I set aside the impugned order (only as to rejection of the reference application), allow the WP to this extent and direct the Collector to refer the matter to Court with all relevant records within four weeks from the date this order is served. No costs. Certified xerox.