- (1.) An award respecting the land acquired for the Guru Nanak Dev University, Amritsar, was announced by the Collector on March 28, 1972. The petitioner who was not present at the time of the announcement of the award, filed an application for reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) on June 1, 1972 which was rejected by the Collector vide order dated May 4, 1973 on the ground that the petitioner had received the payment of the compensation without protest. Aggrieved by that order, the landowner has filed this revision petition.
(2.) The validity of the impugned order has been challenged on the ground that the petitioner had accepted the payment on July 27, 1972 long after the filing of the application for making a reference under Section 18 of the Act in which he had categorically stated that the compensation assessed was not acceptable to him. Further the argument is that the petitioner having already lodged his protest against the compensation assessed it was not necessary for him to do it again while receiving the compensation amount. In support of his contention the learned counsel has relied on The Collector Jabalpur and another V. Kamal Kumar Jain and others, 1973 AIR(MP) 288wherein relying on Tara Chand V. The Land Acquisition Collector, 1971 AIR(Del) 116and Shantabai V. Deputy Collector, Land Acquisition, 1971 AIR(AP) 117, it was held that where a landholder has already filed his application for reference of his claim before the date of withdrawal of the compensation amount, the receiving of the amount subsequently would be deemed to be under protest, even though he may not have mentioned the words 'under protest' in his application for withdrawal of the amount, if any such application was to be at all made, or in the receipt granted showing that the amount had been received and accepted. A discordant note was struck by B.N. Banerjee, J. in Suresh Chandra Roy V. The Land Acquisition Collector Chinsurah, 1964 AIR(Cal) 283in the following words :- "Moreover an application for reference is not the proper document wherein to record such a protest. A protest ought to be made, firstly, in the application for receiving the disputed amount of compensation, if any such application is to be at all made and must be recorded in the receipt granted showing that the disputed amount of compensation money was accepted under protest. Since the petitioner failed to receive the compensation money under a properly recorded protest, I am disinclined to interfere in this matter." This matter depends on the interpretation of the proviso to Section 31 of the Act which reads as under :- "Provided that no person who has received the amount otherwise than under protest shall be entitled to make any application under Section 18." It is evident that the proviso does not specify the manner or time as to how and when the protest is to be recorded. The landowner by filing an application under Section 18 of the Act for reference obviously placed on the record a protest against the compensation assessed by the Collector. Any receipt of the compensation by him, thereafter would not imply the withdrawal of that application or that he has accepted the correctness of the compensation assessed by the Collector. The purpose of the said proviso to Section 18 apparently is to deny a right to the landowner to claim reference who has accepted the correctness of the compensation assessed by the Collector. The moment the landowner files an application for making a reference under Section 18, he lodges a protest against the compensation awarded and thereafter by no stretch of reasoning can it be said that he has accepted the correctness of the compensation assessed by the Collector simply because he does not again record his protest while receiving the compensation. The preponderance of judicial authorities is also in favour of this view which is apparent from the two decisions noticed above and the decision of the Jammu and Kashmir High Court in Collector Land Acquisition V. Tarban Singh,1975 AIR(J&K) 43. Respectfully following the view of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Kamal Kumar Jain's case I hold that the application filed under Section 18 of the Act for reference against the compensation assessed by the Collector does not become incompetent because the landlord thereafter has accepted the compensation without again recording his protest against the compensation assessed at the time of its receipt.
(3.) Consequently, this petition is allowed, the impugned order quashed and the case sent back to the Collector for making a reference under Section 18 of the Act. As the State has not come forward to oppose this petition, the petitioner is left to bear his own costs. Petition accepted.;