Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana)
N. Sangaiah And Others vs Special Deputy Collector, Land ... on 22 July, 1999
Equivalent citations: 1999(5)ALD213, 1999(4)ALT691, 2000 A I H C 2520, (1999) 4 ANDH LT 691, (2000) 2 ANDHWR 103, (1999) 4 CURCC 235, (1999) 5 ANDHLD 213, (1999) 2 LACC 336, (1999) 4 CIVLJ 211
Author: B. Sudershan Reddy
Bench: B. Sudershan Reddy
ORDER
1. The short but interesting question arises for consideration in this writ petition as to the interpretation of Section 18 and Section 32(2) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short 'the Act'). The question that squarely falls for consideration is whether a claimant is not entitled to ask for a reference under Section 18 of the Act for referring the matter to the Court in the absence of a written protest made at the time of receiving of the amount. Before adverting to the said question, the facts in brief may be noticed:
The petitioners are all residents of Veltur village and are agriculturists by profession. Their lands were acquired by the State for the purpose of laying pipeline from the Singur project. Necessary notifications and declarations have been issued under the provisions of the Act about which there is no dispute in this case. The Land Acquisition Officer passed a common award dated 29-12-1987 awarding compensation. According to the petitioners, the award is very meagre and inadequate.
2. The petitioners after receiving notices under Section 12(2) of the Act claims to have filed application under Section 18 of the Act before the Land Acquisition Officer requesting him to refer the matter to the Civil Court for deciding as it is just and proper compensation in respect of the lands acquired. It is specifically stated in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition that the amounts were received under protest. However, they were not aware that such an endorsement is required to be made in a register maintained by the respondent-Land Acquisition Officer for the purpose of recording the disbursement of the amount. It is asserted that they have made oral protest before the Land Acquisition Officer stating that compensation awarded is not acceptable.
3. The Land Acquisition Officer by Memo dated 15-9-1990 rejected the request of the petitioners for referring the matter to the civil Court on the ground that the petitioners have not expressed their protest/ objection at the time of receiving the compensation. The Land Acquisition Officer (for short 'LAO') accordingly rejected the request of the petitioners.
4. In this writ petition, Mr. K. Raji Reddy, learned Counsel for'the petitioners submits that the Act does not provide for any specific mode or method of expressing protest at the time of receiving compensation. Learned Counsel would urge that the protest at the time of receiving the compensation could be oral or written. The mere fact that an endorsement is not made by the claimant in some register maintained by the LAO would not be a ground for rejecting the application. It is further contended that the mere fact of an application requesting for reference under Section 18 of the Act itself would show that amounts have been accepted by the claimants under protest. Learned Government Pleader for Land Acquisition contended that the second proviso to Section 31(2) of the Act prohibits making an application under Section 18 of the Act by a person who has received the amount without any protest. Learned Government Pleader would urge that a claimant is required to express his protest in matter before receiving the amount.
5. It may be appropriate to have a look at the Section 18 of the Act which enables a person interested and has not accepted the award to file a written application to the LAO requiring the matter to be referred for determination of the Court on any of the grounds mentioned therein. Section 18 of the Act reads:
18. Reference to Court :--(1) Any person interested who has not accepted the award may, by written application to the Collector, require that the matter be referred by the Collector for the determination of the Court, whether his objection be to the measurement of the land, the amount of the compensation the persons to whom it is payable, or the appointment of the compensation among the persons interested.
(2) The application shall state the grounds on which objection to the award is taken:
Provided that every such application shall be made:
(a) if the person making it was present or represented before the Collector at the time when he made his award within six weeks from the date of the Collector's award;
(b) in other cases, within six weeks of the receipt of the notice from the Collector under Section 12, subsection (2), or within six months from the date of the Collector's award, whichever period shall first expire.
The other section relevant for our purpose is-
Section 31. It reads as:
31. Payment of compensation or deposit of same In Court :--(1) On making an award under Section 11, the compensation awarded by him to the persons interested entitled thereto according to the award and shall pay it to them unless prevented by some one or more of the contingencies mentioned in the next sub-section.
Sub-section (1) of Section 31 in its application to the State of Andhra Pradesh For the purpose of acquisition of land for the construction, extension or improvement of any dwelling-house for the poor, the Land Acquisition Act shall have effect in relation to such acquisition subject to the following modifications, namely:--
(1) On making an award under Section 11, the Collector shall tender payment of the compensation awarded by him to the persons interested entitled thereto according to the award, and shall pay it to them (in a lump sum in case where it does not exceed five hundred rupees and in all other cases in such number of equal annual instalments not exceeding five as may be determined by the Collector):
(Provided that where the compensation is sought to be paid in instalments, the Collector shall pay instalments of the amounts awarded with interest thereon at six per cent per annum from the time of taking possession of the land until the last instalment is paid :
Provided further that where possession of land is taken but the compensation awarded is not paid or deposited before the date of commencement of the Land Acquisition (Andhra Pradesh Amendment) Act, 1976, the provisions of this section shall apply in relation to the payment of compensation as if the acquisition proceedings have been started after the date of commencement of the said Act.) (2) If they shall not consent to receive it, or if there be no person competent to alienate the land, or if there be any dispute as to the title to receive the compensation or as to the appointment of it, the Collector shall deposit the amount of the compensation in the Court to which a reference under Section 18 would be submitted:
Provided that any person admitted to be interested may receive such payment under protest as to the sufficiency of the amount;
Provided also that no person who has received the amount otherwise than under protest shall be entitled to make any application under Section 18:
Provided also that nothing herein contained shall effect the liability of any person, who may receive the whole or any part of any compensation awarded under this Act, to pay the same to the person lawfully entitled thereto.
(3) Notwithstanding anything in this section, the Collector, may, with the sanction of the (appropriate Government) instead of awarding a money, compensation in respect of any land, make any arrangement with a person having a limited interest in such land, either by the grant of other land in exchange the remission of land revenue on other lands held under the same title, or in such other way as may be equitable having regard to the interests of the parties concerned.
(4) Nothing in the last foregoing subsection shall be construed to interfere with or limit the power of the Collector to enter into any arrangement with any person interested in the land and competent to contract in respect thereof.
6. The second proviso to Section 31(2) of the Act mandates that no person who has received the amount otherwise than under protest shall be entitled to make an application under Section 18 of the Act. There is no dispute whatsoever that the protest by the claimant is sine qua non for making an application under Section 18 of the Act. But, the question that arises for consideration is as to how and in what manner the protest is to be expressed by a claimant and at what point of time?
7. In Wardington Lyngdoh v. Collector, , the Apex Court observed that:
"the persons interested in the land are entitled to receive compensation awarded by the Collector under Section 11 under protest and entitled to object to the compensation determined by the Collector. No person who had received the amount otherwise than under protest should be entitled to make the application under Section 18. In other words, the receipt of the amount under protest is a condition precedent to make in application under Section 18 within the limitation prescribed under the proviso to sub-section (2) of Section 18 together with the grounds on which the objections have been taken. Thereon the Collector is enjoined to make a reference to the civil Court with the statement in the manner stated in Section 19."
In Land Acquisition Officer v. Shiva Bai, , the Apex Court observed that:
"It is now settled position in law that claimants who received the compensation under protest and who make application under Section 18(1), alone are entitled to seek reference; third parties, who have been impleaded, have no right to claim higher compensation by circumventing the process of reference under Section 18."
8. In Ajit Singh v. State of Punjab, 1994 (2) Scale 22, the Apex Court observed 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."
Evidently, it was a case where the compensation appears to have been received by the claimants without protest. But, the applicant subsequently appears to have filed an application under Section 18 of the Act for reference to the Court. The Apex Court under those circumstances held that the subsquent application under Section 18, itself, would show that there was implied protest against the award.
9. In Suram Ramakka v. District Collector, Karimnagar, , a learned single Judge of this Court held that:
"the law does not prescribe any particular mode of protest and such an oral protest is a valid protest under law."
10. In Kotipalli Chilli v. Special Deputy Collector (LA), , another learned single Judge of this Court, following the judgment of the Apex Court in Ajit Singh's case (supra) held that a reference under Section 18 is maintainable even in the absence of express protest at the time of receiving compensation. In the said case, the petitioner appears to have filed an application under Section 18 of the Act immediately after receiving the amount and a notice under Section 12(2) of the Act. Under those circumstances, this Court held that an application filed by the claimant for reference under Section 18 of the Act, itself, would manifest the intention of the claimants to accept the amounts under protest. It was a subsequent application filed by the claimant conveying implied protest.
Another learned single Judge of this Court also took the same view in Sode Petitaiah v. LAO, 1996 (4) ALD 440 = 1996 APHN 298.
11. In LAO-cum-RDO, Kama Reddy v.D.P. Balavva, 1996 (1) ALD 186, a Division Bench of this Court, in an authoritative pronouncement, after referring to various judgments of the High Courts and Supreme Court, including the judgment in Ajith Singh's case (supra) held:
"No mode or method of protest and receiving compensation awarded by the Collector under protest is prescribed. A person who is alleged to have received compensation without protest will be one who knew the implications of the award by the Collector under Section 11 of the Act that he had a right to claim higher compensation and seek reference of the matter to a civil Court. In other words, it should be a conscious and deliberate decision of receiving compensation and not protesting against it in any manner. The Supreme Court has made it clear that when no mode or manner of protesting to the award and amount of compensation is prescribed, the intention that the amount of compensation is not acceptable can be inferred from the objections and demand of reference to the civil Court by the person interested."
12. The Division Bench observed that this view is not in conflict with the view earlier taken by this Court in C.S. Ramachandra Rao's case, , and further held:
"the view so taken in all respects is in consonance with the scheme of the laws as to the award of compensation and adjudication by the civil Court of the claim for any enhancement of compensation."
13. In the instant case, the Land Acquisition Officer rejected the request of the petitioner for referring the matter under Section 18 of the Act to a competent Court of civil jurisdiction on the ground that the petitioner have received the amount without expressing their objections in writing.
14. It is the case of the learned Government Pleader that the Petitioner Nos. 1 and 16 have expressed their protest and requested for reference and the matter has been accordingly referred to the civil Court and the other petitioners have received the amount without any protest. In the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, it is stated in categorical term that the petitioners have expressed their protest orally at the time of receiving the amount of compensation. The said fact is not denied by the respondent.
15. There is no provision under the Act or the Rules framed thereunder as to mode, method and manner of expressing protest while receiving the amount of compensation under an award passed under Section 11 of the Act. Under those circumstances, the acceptance of the amount of compensation under the award by way of oral protest would meet the requirements of law. The protest could be either oral or in writing. The application for reference under Section 18 of the Act cannot be rejected on the ground that the claimants have not expressed their protest in writing, provided the applications are filed within the period of limitation prescribed by the Act. The second proviso to sub-section (2) of Section 31 merely declares that no person who has received the amount otherwise than under protest shall be entitle to make any application under Section 18. So what is required is a protest by the claimants. The very application seeking a reference by the claimants by necessary implication would show that the amount of compensation has been received under protest. It would be entirely a different matte, if the application is not filed within the period of limitation.
16. Precisely, for the said reason, the Supreme Court in Ajith Singh's (supra) observed that the application for reference under Section 18 of the Act will manifest the intention of the claimants and the protest against the Award of the Collector is implied notwithstanding the acceptance of compensation.
17. On an analysis of the judgments referred to herein above, the legal position that clearly emerges is:
(a) There is no particular mode, method and manner for expressing protest by a claimant at the time of receiving of compensation awarded under Section 11 of the Act by the Collector;
(b) The protest could be either oral or written;
(c) The application, if any, filed for reference under Section 18 of the Act, within the period of limitation provided under the Act, itself, would manifest the implied protest of the claimants at the time of receiving the compensation;
(d) If there is no application filed within the period of limitation, the matter cannot be referred by the Land Acquisition Officer; and
(e) The third parties cannot ask for any reference under Section 18 of the Act. It is only the claimants who are entitled to ask for reference, after receiving the amounts under protest and such protest may be either express or implied.
18. In the instant case, the petitioners have admittedly filed applications seeking reference under the Act within the period of limitation. Those applications will manifest their intention of expressing the implied protest at the time of receiving compensation. That apart, the assertion made by them that they have orally protested at the time of receiving the compensation, itself, is not denied by the respondent.
19. For all the afore said reasons, the writ petition is allowed and the respondent is directed to refer the matter under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, to a Court of competent civil jurisdiction within six weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Let a writ of mandamus be issued accordingly. There shall be no order as to costs.