PRITHVI RAJ, J. - (1.) Since common question of law is involved in these petitions, it would be convenient to dispose them of by a single judgment.
(2.) The relevant facts for the disposal of these writ petitions arc as under. Land measuring 4826 Bighas 4 Biswas situated in village Masoodpur was notified under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, hereinafter referred to as .the Act. vide notification dated 23-1-1965 for acquisition for a public purpose viz. for the planned development of Delhi. The aforesaid notification included land comprised in khasra Nos. 267, 269, 275, 303 Min and 274/2 Min in all measuring 63 Bighas belonging to the petitioners. The petitioners filed objections under section 5A of the Act to their land being acquired. The appropriate authority after considering the objections, rejected the same and issued declaration dated 6-9-1966 under section 6 of the Act for acquisition of the land of petitioners including other land. Notices under sections 9 and 10 were issued to the petitioners. The Land Acquisition Collector after considering the claims of petitioners made and filed Award No. 225 dated 26-3-1969 offering compensation to the petitioners for their land acquired under the award. The case of the petitioners is that they accepted the compensation offered to them under protest and being not satisfied with the amount of compensation, filed an application on-the same day before the Collector staling that the compensation offered was less and that petitioners would prefer appeal/revision/representation against the award in accordance with the law in a competent court slating that the petitioners received the compensation under protest keeping their right alive and that payment be made to them under protest. Petitioners subsequently filed an application under section 18 of the Act before the Collector requiring him to refer the matter for determination of the court. The Collector by his impugned order dated 24-5-1969 An- nexcure 'C' withheld the reference application on the ground that the same was barred under IInd proviso to section 31(2) of the Act. The petitioners feeling aggrieved by the aforcsaid order, challange the same in these writ petitions alleging that they had accepted the compensation under protest through cheque without waiving their right of filing reference petition under section 18 of the Act.
(3.) The respondents controverted the said assertion contending that the compensation amount had been accepted by the petitioners without protest, waiving their right of filing reference petition under section 18 of the Act.;