Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

3. We have heard the petitioners' learned Counsel and the learned A.G.P., for the respondent.

4. The petitioners' contention is that they had received compensation and raised oral objection to the effect that the compensation amount was inadequate. After receiving notice issued under Section 12 of the Act, the petitioners filed reference application within the period of limitation and, therefore, it is contended that the respondent was bound to refer the case for the purpose of deciding the question regarding enhancement of compensation. Counsel for the petitioners contended that even if the petitioners had not raised any protest as such, reference application is filed within time and that is sufficient to indicate that they had not accepted the award. Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act reads as under:

(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, Sub-section (2), or within six months from the date of the Collector's award whichever period shall first expire.

5. From the above section, it is clear that any interested person, who has not accepted the award, can make written application for reference. If the interested person is not present at the time when the award is made or he has received notice under Section 12(2) of the Act, he has to submit his application within six weeks and in other cases, he shall submit application within a period of six months from the date of Collector's award. In the instant case, it is found that the petitioners submitted application within the stipulated time. The question is as to whether the petitioners have accepted the award or not. According to the petitioners, they have not accepted the award. Even though they have received compensation from the respondent, according to the petitioners' Counsel, the fact that they had filed application under Section 18 of the Act by itself is indicative of the fact that they have not accepted the award. The petitioners' counsel placed reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in Ajit Singh and Ors. v. State of Punjab and Ors. 1994 LACC 365. The Supreme Court observed in para 6 of the judgment that,... "inasmuch as the appellants have filed an application for reference under Section 18 of the Act that will manifest their intention. Therefore, the protest against the award of the Collector is implied notwithstanding the acceptance of compensation". In the case of Bakshi Ram Jain v. State of Haryana 1997 (2) LACC 590, decided by the Division Bench of Punjab and Haryana High Court, the claimants had demanded land value at Rs. 26/- per sq. yard. The Collector had awarded compensation at Rs. 1.60. The land-owners filed application for reference under Section 18. The Collector rejected the application on the ground that the land-owners had received compensation without protest. The Court held that the fact that they had claimed larger amount than what had been granted by the respondents itself is indicative of the fact that they had not accepted the awarded amount. It was observed as under: