Jayanta Kumar Biswas - (1.) 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.
(2.) 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.
(3.) 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.;