Rattan Singh vs State of Haryana and Another

Harjit Singh Bedi, J.—Regular First Appeals No. 1241 of 1984 and 1242 of 1984, have been directed against the orders dated April 26, 1984 and R.F.A. NO. 382 of 1985 against the order dated December 5, 1984 passed by the Additional District Judge, Rohtak, declining and dismissing the land references made u/s 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, (hereinafter called ''the Act'').

Land belonging to the appellant as also other persons, was acquired for public purpose by the State of Haryana. The Land Acquisition Collector, assessed the value of the acquired land as under:-

Chahi: Rs. 10,000/- per acre. Barani: Rs. 8,000/- per acre. Bhud: Rs. 7,000/- per acre. Banjar Qadim: Rs. 4,000/- per acre. Gair Mumkin Rasta Rs. 2,000/- per acre.

Dis-satisfied with the award of the Collector, the petitioner claimed a reference u/s 18 of the Act, and the Additional District Judge, Rohtak, after recording the evidence determined the value of the land as follows:-

Chahi: Rs. 15,000/- per acre. Barani: Rs. 11,000/- per acre. Bhud: Rs. 8,000/- per acre. Gair Mumkin: Rs. 4,000/- per acre.

The Additional District Judge, however, declined the references on two counts, firstly, that the compensation at the hands of the Collector had been received by the appellant without protest and secondly, that the applications for reference having been made beyond the period fixed u/s 18 of the Act, they were not maintainable. Aggrieved by the order of the Additional District Judge, Rohtak, the present appeals have been filed.

Mr. Rajinder Goel, learned counsel for the appellant has challenged the correctness of those findings. He has pointed out that in addition to statement in form No. 19 appended to the Rules under the Act, there was a letter written by the Land Acquisition Collector forwarding the references claimed by the petitioner. He has urged that on a reading of this forwarding letter alongwith the statement above mentioned the only inference that could be drawn was that the appellants had taken the amount of compensation from the Collector under protest. He has also urged relying on Ajmer Singh and Ors. v. The State of Punjab 1984 P.L.J. 325 that Section in 31(2) of the Act, which authorised a claimant to accept or not to accept the compensation under protest, no particular form of protest had been prescribed under the Act and even an oral protest was sufficient to claim a reference u/s 18. It has also been pointed out by Mr. Goel that even as per the oral evidence adduced by the appellant, it was clear that they had received the compensation under protest, on the question of limitation too, Mr. Goel has with reference to specific dates and the Act itself, urged that the reference was within time.

After hearing the learned counsel for the appellants, these appeals deserve to succeed. It would be apparent from a casual glance at statement No. 19 which is a document attested by the Land Acquisition Collector that the compensation had been received by the appellants on July 27,1978 under protest. The mere fact that this protest is incorporated in a printed document, does not mean that no protest was made. It is to be highlighted that the Land Acquisition Collector, while exercising his powers as such, is an agent of the Government but he has been conferred with a statutory duty to forward a reference sought by a claimant. In this situation, to hold a note duly recorded by the Land Acquisition Collector, should not be believed as it was a on a printed performa would be to belie the very truthfulness of an official document for no reasons whatsoever. It will also be seen from the oral evidence adduced that the appellant had received the compensation under protest and I find no reason to hold otherwise. It is to be noted that the land acquired in the rural areas is often taken away from persons not fully able to comprehend complicated legal procedures and to hold a rigid view as has been done by the Additional District Judge, would cause serious injustice as even the Additional District Judge while declining the reference has determined under Issue No. 1 that the compensation awarded by the Collector was inadequate and for this reason as well, equity demands that the Court should interfere to set (sic) right.

The appeals are also liable to succeed on the second point. It has been urged and, I think correctly, that the references were claimed within time. The Additional District Judge, has declined the reference under a mis-conception inasmuch as that he was under the impression that in case the person was present when the award was made by the Collector, limitation for claiming reference was two weeks. This is, on the face of it, incorrect as Section 18(2)(a) of the Act specifically provides that this period shall be six weeks from the date on which the award was made. It would be apparent that the award of the Collector was made on July 27, 1978 an the compensation was accepted by the appellants on that very day and the reference was made on September 7, 1978 which was beyond two weeks but certainly within six weeks as provided u/s 18(2) of the Act.

For the reasons recorded above, the present appeals are allowed. The award of the Additional District Judge on Issue Nos. 2 and 3 is set aside and the appellants are held entitled to the compensation determined under issue No. 1 with costs of the appeals. It is also directed that the benefit of provisions of amended Land Acquisition Act in so far as they are applicable to the appellants shall also be made available to them.