PATEL VASHRAM GOPALBHAI Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT
LAWS(GJH)-1988-9-4
HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT
Decided on September 05,1988

PATEL VASHRAM GOPALBHAI Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF GUJARAT Respondents


Referred Judgements :-

RABARI MAHADEV AMRA V. PRANT OFFICER RADHANPUR [REFERRED]
STATE OF PUNJAB VS. HARCHARAN KAUR [REFERRED]



Cited Judgements :-

KHAZANA RAM VS. LAC [LAWS(HPH)-2006-12-4] [RELIED ON]
PALLY DANIEL VS. SPECIAL TAHASILDAR (L A) & OTHERS [LAWS(KER)-1990-4-25] [REFERRED TO]
GCDA VS. IQBAL [LAWS(KER)-1991-3-35] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

P.R.GOKULAKRISHNAN - (1.)Rule. Mr. Hawa waives service of the rule. By consent the rule is heard today.
(2.)In this petition the main prayer is for referring the matter to the Court under Sec. 18 of the Land Acquisition Act for getting enhanced compensation. The prayer for reference was rejected by the Collector concerned on the ground that the petitioner has without any demur accepted the award and as such no reference is possible under Sec. 18 of the Act. Mr. Patel learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners states that there was an oral objection and that said protest was made before the Officer concerned before accepting the award and that the question as to whether there was an objection or not has to be decided by the Court to which reference under Sec. 18 be made. In order to strengthen the case of the petitioner herein Mr. Patel read Annexure C to the petition wherein paragraph 3(2) it is stated as follow:
"3 When the said award was declared on the date of payment also my clients had informed you that the compensation is very much inadequate and it is not according to their demand and that it is not according to the current market rate. My clients were ready to give their written objections in that behalf at the very time. But you had informed them that the objections are raised from the beginning and their demand is also there on the record and therefore it was not necessary to give additional objections at the time of payment. Inspite of that you had not taken note of the oral objections raised by my client and thereafter my clients had accepted the amount of compensation".

(3.)The question as to whether such a protest was made or not according to Mr. Patel has to be decided by the District Court to which the reference will be made under Sec. 18 and this question according to Mr. Patel was decided by this Court in the case of Rabari Mahadev Amra v. Prant Officer Radhanpur [1979] 20 GLR 760. No doubt in this case a single Judge of our High Court has considered the propriety of the trial Judge while rejecting the reference on the ground that the protest was not in writing. In that decision the learned Judge has referred to the Full Bench decision of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in The State of Punjab v. Smt. Harcharan Kaur AIR 1975 P. & H. 66. In that decision the Punjab and Haryana High Court has fairly stated as under:
"Since Sec. 31(2) second proviso of the Act creates a statutory bar to a person who has accepted the compensation without protest from making an application under Sec. 18 of the Act it is the duty of the Court if an objection is raised by the respondent to determine whether the applicant has the right to make the application or not. If he comes to the conclusion that the application had been made by a person who had accepted the award he must throw out the reference without deciding it on merits. Such a decision will disentitle the applicant from claiming any enhancement in the amount of compensation awarded by the Collector".
Referring to this decision our High Court has held in that decision as under:
"It is clear from these observations that what the Court dealing with a reference under Sec. 18 of the Act is enjoined to do is to make an inquiry as to whether the amount of compensation was accepted by the applicant without protest i. e. whether the applicant had accepted the award without a demur and if the Court comes to the affirmative finding on this question it is bound to reject the reference in view of the statutory bar created by the second proviso to Sec. 31(2) of the Act".
Hence it is the duty of the District Court to which the reference will be made under Sec. 18 to decide as to whether the award was accepted without any protest it may throw out the reference under Sec. 18. Thus it is not for the Collector to decide and reject the reference under Sec. 18 but he has to refer the same leaving the question open to be decided by the District Court to which reference will be made under Sec. 18.
;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.