- (1.) THIS writ petition arises out of the proceedings for acquisition of peti tioners' land. The State Government issued a notification under Section 4 Land Acqui sition Act on 5th October 1963, stating that the land belonging to the petitioners, along with certain other land in the locality was needed for the Extension Stage III or Har-duaganj Steam Station for the Superintend ing Engineer, Hydel State Electricity Board. In due course the Land Acquisi tion Officer made an award on 12th August, 1964. The same day some of the petitioners accepted the amounts awarded to them as compensation. The petitioners allege that they accepted the compensation under protest while the respondents' case is that no protest was made at that time. On the same day some of the petitioners made an application before the Land Ac quisition Officer, expressing their dissatisfac tion at the compensation awarded and stat ing that they accept the compensation sub ject to the determination of their rights by the Civil Courts, because they were thinking of applying for a reference to the District Judge against the award. Thereafter, on 14th April 1965 some of the petitioners made an application under Section 18, Land Acquisition Act, praying that their case be referred to the District Judge for determi nation of the compenation. This applica tion was, however, dismissed by the Land Acquisition Officer, presumably, on the ground that it was barred by limitation.
(2.) THEREAFTER the petitioners made an application to the District Judge where a reference made at the instance of respon dents Nos. 6 to 10 was pending disposal. They prayed that they may be impleaded as parties in the pending reference and on 14-9-1965 this application was allowed. But, on 19th March 1966 the learned Ad ditional District Judge passed another order, stating that the applicants fail ed to get the reference petition amended and therefore, the order of 14th Septem ber 1965 allowing these persons to be im pleaded as parties became unenforceable. Their names now could not be added be cause the Court had already disposed of the pending reference on 19th February 1966. Some of the petitioners filed a writ petition in this Court against this order but the same was dismissed (Paragraph 23 of the Writ Petition). The present writ was instituted by twenty-six persons on 27th August 1968. Learned counsel for the petitioners has pressed two points. In the first place, it was urged that the application dated 12th August 1964 (Annexure I to the Supplemen tary Affidavit) was in law an application praying for a reference under Section 18 Land Acquisition Act. In this connection learned counsel has placed reliance upon Krishnammal v. Collector of Coimbatore, (AIR 1927 Mad 282). In my view, the submission has no merit. Section 18 (1), Land Acquisition Act provides that, "any person interested who has not accepted the award may, by written application to the Collector require that the matter be refer red by the Collector for the determination of the Court." Under sub-section (2) of Section 18, Land Acquisition Act the ap plication has to state the grounds on which the objection to the award is taken. Thus, there are three essential conditions for an application being treated as an application for a reference under Section 18 of the Act. It must be by a person who has not ac cepted the award. The petitioners allege that they accepted the compensation pay able under the award under protest. The respondents in their counter affidavit controverted this. It has been stated that the petitioners appeared on the same day the award was made, namely on 12th August, 1964 and received the money payable to them as compensation without making any protest. Normally, a writ petition is not entertained when disputed questions of fact are involved. On this point of fact the par ties have sworn contradictory affidavits. It is hence difficult to allow this point. In such a state of affairs, it cannot be said that a person interested who had not accepted the award had made the application dated 12th August 1964.
(3.) IN the next place, the application has to be in writing and has to require the Collector to refer the matter for determina tion of the Court. The application made by some of the petitioners stated that they were not satisfied with the compensa tion awarded. They were accepting the compensation subject to the determi nation of the compensation by the Civil Courts. Having said that, they, further stated that they were doing so be cause they were thinking of making a refer ence to the District Judge against the award. This last sentence in the application clearly brings out the intention behind making this application and the intention was that they were not satisfied with the compensation and that they were thinking of applying for a reference. Clearly they had not till then settled their minds and were not definite about making an application for a reference. They were still thinking about it. Under the circumstances, this application dated 12th August, 1964, could not be deemed to be an application requiring the Collector to refer the matter to the Court for determi nation of the compensation. The second condition of Section 18 Land Acquisition Act also remained unsatisfied.;