Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana)
Special Deputy Collector, Land ... vs N. Sangaiah And Others on 18 November, 2000
Equivalent citations: 2000(3)ALD43, 2000(2)ALT519
ORDER
1. The learned Government Pleader for Land Acquisition has contended that since no protest was raised by the respondent-writ petitioners while accepting the compensation, the petition under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act (for short 'the Act') seeking reference to the civil Court is not maintainable. It is not disputed that the application under Section 18 of the Act was made within limitation. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ajit Singh v. State of Punjab, (1994) 2 Scale 22 at 316, has observed thus:
"... inasmuch as the appellants have filed an application for reference under Section 18 of the Act that will manifest their intention, and therefore, the protest against the award of the Collector is implied notwithstanding the acceptance of compensation."
2. In view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court there is no gain-saying that since no specific procedure or form is provided for recording the protest, the fact of filing an application under Section 18 of the Act within the stipulated period of limitation will lead to an inference of fact that the petitioners never accepted the compensation without protest and the protest is very much inherent. The right to prefer a petition for proper assessment of the market value of the land acquired is inherent in the right of ownership of a person to the property that is sought to be acquired by the State. This is the only protection granted to the owner of a land. On the hyper technical reasons of an express protest not being made the State cannot deny the land owner the right to seek reference to the civil Court for a reasonable compensation. Fair administration of the State demands that they bestow objective approach to such a situation and that they shall not deprive the citizens of their property just for hyper technical reasons.
3. The learned Government Pleader relied on Wardington Lyngdoh v. Collector, . The judgment cited by the learned Counsel for the appellant is with respect to the particular facts and circumstances of that case. The question was whether there was in fact a protest or not. The question whether the protest was express or implied did not fall for consideration before the Supreme Court. When there are two contradictory views of co-ordinate Benches, it is for the Court to take that which is inconsonance with the statutory provisions of law and more reasonable. The judgment cited by the learned Counsel for the appellant does not refer to the statutory provisions of the Act nor has dealt with the earlier consistent law laid down by the Supreme Court.
4. The learned Counsel for the appellant further relied on Kannan v. Land Acquisition Officer, 1997 (2) LACC 317 Ker., which also does not attract to the facts and circumstances of the present case apart form the fact that in that case it was found as of fact that protest was lodged.
5. The learned Counsel for the appellant also argued that no protest under Section 31(2) of the Act was lodged and the implication of Section 31(2) of the Act was not considered by the Court below. We find no force in this submission. Section 31(2) of the Act envisages no particular form of protest. Protest has to be implied in the facts and circumstances of each case and as we have observed earlier the Act does not prescribe a particular mode of protest. Protest can be lodged within the period prescribed for making an application under Section 18 of the Act. Mere acceptance of the compensation does not deprive the petitioners to lodge a protest within the stipulated period by way of seeking a reference. Oral protest by itself is sufficient. The claimants have raised objection by seeking enhancement of compensation while replying to the notice under Section 9 of the Act. In ordinary course, if an amount less than the amount expected is paid it will be reasonable to assume that he would raise protest which would be further fortified when actually a claim petition is filed within the time stipulated.
6. The learned Counsel for the appellant further relied on Somasundaram v. District Collector, . The law laid down by the Division Bench cannot stand to the scrutiny of law later laid down by the Supreme Court in Ajit Singh v. State of Punjab (supra). Even otherwise, in the facts and circumstances of the case and by the act and conduct of the writ petitioners, we find, as observed above, that an oral protest must have been made and has in fact been made. Even assuming that the law laid own by the Division Bench in Somasundaram v. District Collector (supra) is correct, inspite of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the later cases, a finding cannot be returned in this case as of fact that protest was not raised by the land owners when the amount was tendered.
7. For the above reasons, the writ appeal is dismissed with costs of Rs.1,000/-(Rupees One Thousand only) to be borne by the officer concerned and shall be credited to the Secretary, A.P. State Legal Services Authority, Hyderabad.