- (1.) The challenge in this petition is to the order dated 26.7.1985, passed by the Land Acquisition Collector, Sonepat, rejecting an application for reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for brevity, 'the Act), to the District Judge on the ground that the compensation had been accepted without any protest and, therefore, the provisions of Section 31(2) of the Act were fully applicable.
(2.) Brief facts of the case are that the land of the petitioners was acquired after following due procedure in the year 1985 and according to the record the compensation was determined on the basis of negotiation held between 'the land owners and the Land Acquisition Collector. The aforementioned position is evident from the record and the entries duly signed by the Land Acquisition Collector, dated 14.6.1985 shows that the petitioners along with other land owners have agreed for compensation in respect of the land on the basis of its nature as under:- JUDGEMENT_545_LAWS(P&H)5_2006_1.html
(3.) After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I am of the view that when the compensation has been accepted in accordance with the terms and conditions of an agreement and no protest has even been raised by the land owners at the time of accepting the compensation then such land owners cannot seek a reference under Section 18 of the Act to the District Judge for enhancement of compensation. In support of the aforementioned proposition, two judgments of the Honble Supreme Court to which reference has been made by the learned State counsel, could be relied upon, namely, Wardington Lyngdoh and others v. The Collector, Mawkyrwat, 1995 AIR(SC) 2340and State of Gujarat and others v. Daya Shamji Bhai and others, 1995 5 SCC 746.;