Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana)
Kotipalli Chitti vs Special Deputy Collector, Land ... on 24 January, 1997
Equivalent citations: 1997(2)ALT429, 1997 A I H C 1855, (1997) 1 LACC 341, (1997) 2 ANDHLD 435, (1997) 3 ICC 689, (1997) 2 ANDH LT 429, (1997) 1 APLJ 329, (1997) 2 CIVLJ 518, (1997) 2 LANDLR 521
ORDER A. Hanumanthu, J.
1. This revision is directed against the order and decretal order, dated 27-34992 passed in I.A. No. 163 of 1992 in O.P. No. 33/1989 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Rajahmundry. By the impugned order, the learned Subordinate Judge rejected the O.P. No. 33/1989 referred under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter called Act).
2. The lands belonging to the revision-petitioner and some others were acquired for the purpose of construction of Base Complex, Administrative and Technical Offices, Storage Sheds, Work Shops, transport yard, etc., by the Oil and Natural Gas Commission, Rajahmundry. The Land Acquisition Officer after making appropriate enquiry, passed the Award No. 7/88, dated 30-6-1988 fixing the compensation for the acquired land at Rs. 50,000/- per acre and also granted other benefits under the Act. Not satisfied with the compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer the petitioner and other claimants filed before the Land Acquisition Officer applications under Section 18(2) of the Land Acquisition Act for making reference to the Civil Court for enhancing the compensation amount. On the petition submitted by the petitioner herein, the Land Acquisition Officer referred the case under Section 18 of the L.A. Act and the same has been numbered as O.P. No. 33/89. While the matter was pending enquiry, the Land Acquisition Officer filed I.A. No. 163/92 under Section 151 CPC requesting the Court to reject O.P. No. 33/89 on the ground that the petitioner received the compensation amount without any protest. The revision-petitioner filed his counter disputing the averments in the affidavit appended to the petition and also it is stated that the petitioner questioned the adequacy of the compensation granted and received the compensation under protest. This petition had been enquired into along with 9 other petitions and a common order has been passed. As seen from the common order, no oral evidence was adduced on either side in relation to LA. No. 163/92 in O.P. No. 33/89. The learned Subordinate Judge in para 16 of the common order observes that the reference in O.P. No. 33/89 is invalid in view of the entries in the acquittance for the compensation amount in the file, that the claimant received the compensation without protest and as such, the claim of the claimant is barred for enhanced compensation and consequently, reference under O.P, No. 33/89 has been rejected. Aggrieved of that order, the claimant has come up with this revision.
3. Heard the learned Counsel for the revision-petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Land Acquisition.
4. The learned Government Pleader for Land Acquisition submits that notice under Section 12(2) of the Act was served on the claimant's Advocate on 16-7-1988 and also as seen from the entries in the acquittance register, the claimant received the amount without any protest and as the application under Section 18(2) was not filed within two months from the date of service of notice under Section 12(2) of the Act, reference in O.P. No. 33/89 is not maintainable. The learned Counsel for the revision-petitioner, on the other hand, submits that the compensation awarded was received under protest and that the application under Section 18(2) was made within time requesting the Land Acquisition Officer to make a reference to the Civil Court for enhanced compensation amount. The learned Counsel for the revision-petitioner further submits that even without any express protest while receiving the compensation, as the application under Section 18(2) of the Act was filed claiming enhancement of compensation, there is an implied protest and as such, the reference is maintainable. There is much force in the contention of the learned Counsel for the revision-petitioner. The learned Government Pleader also produced the acquittance register relating to the payment of compensation amount to the revision-petitioner herein. There is also thumb-impression of the claimant in acknowledgement of the receipt of compensation amount. But, there is no express protest in that acknowledgement in the acquittance register. The learned Government Pleader also showed the acknowledgement made by the Advocate for the claimant to the effect that the copy of the award has been received on 16-7-1988 and submits that this amounts to service of notice under Section 12(2) of the Act. But, the learned Government Pleader is not disputing the fact that the Land Acquisition Officer made this reference on receipt of the application under Section 18(2) of the Act. Further, as seen from the affidavit of the Special Deputy Collector, Land Acquisition Officer, appended to the petition in I.A. No. 163/92, it is categorically averred thus:
"I submit that the respondent not having been satisfied with the compensation awarded presented an application under Section 18(2) of the L.A. Act for referring the matter to the Court."
Thus, even though there is no express protest in the acquittance register at the time of receiving the compensation, there is clear admission on the part of the Land Acquisition Officer that the petitioner herein not having satisfied with the compensation awarded, presented the application under Section 18(2) of the Act for referring the matter to the Court. In view of this application under Section 18(2) of the Act, the Land Acquisition Officer made the reference and the same has been numbered as O.P. No. 33/1989.
5. In "Ajit Singh and Ors. v. State of Punjab and Ors." , 1994 LACC 365 (S.C.), the Supreme Court held that 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. Following the said Supreme Court decision, in a recent case in "Sode Pentaiah v. The Land Acquisition Officer & Special Deputy Collector, IPT & Railways", 1996 A.P. High Court Notes 298 my learned brother Rajagopala Reddy, J. also held that persons who took the compensation without any express protest but filed applications for reference on the same day are also entitled to claim for enhancement of compensation as there was implied protest. I am in full agreement with the said observations.
6. In the instant case also as the revision-petitioner filed the application under Section 18 of the Act immediately after receiving the amount and the notice under Section 12(2) of the Act, there is implied protest against the compensation awarded. Therefore the reference is maintainable even in the absence of express protest at the time of receiving the compensation. As seen from the impugned order, the learned Judge was carried away by the absence of express protest in the acquittance register. He has not considered the application submitted under Section 18(2) of the Act requesting the Land Acquisition Officer to make a reference to the Civil Court on the ground that he was not satisfied with the compensation awarded. Therefore, the impugned order is liable to be set aside.
7. In the result, the revision petition is allowed. The order in I.A. No. 163/92 in O.P. No. 33/1989 is set aside. The learned Subordinate Judge, Rajahmundry is directed to dispose of the O.P. No. 33 /1989 within four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The office is directed to forward the records to the lower Court within (10) days. Parties are directed to bear their costs in this appeal.