Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

23. We have already observed earlier that neither Section 18 of the Act nor Section 31 of the Act or any other provision in the Act provide for the method, form and manner of lodging protest when the claimant is not satisfied with the compensation awarded. Even the second proviso to Sub-section (2) of Section 31 does not prescribe the time of lodging protest, that whether the protest as to the receipt of the amount of compensation has to be made simultaneously while receiving the amount or prior to or subsequent thereto. It also nowhere postulates that the protest must be in writing. We must bear in mind the purport and purpose of reference to the Civil Court. An award of the Collector made under Section 11 of the Act is nothing but an offer on behalf of the Government of the amount of compensation payable to a person, who is deprived of his property. In a Welfare State, under the State's right of eminent domain a person so deprived of his property is entitled to have fair and reasonable amount of compensation with reference to the true market value of the land as on the date of issuance of Section 4(1) notification and the same should not be denied on mere technical pleas.

24. It would be appropriate at this stage to refer to the decision of a Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in Bhag Singh v. Union Terriotry of Chandigarh, , wherein it was held that a person who is deprived compulsorily of his property by the State under the provisions of the Act is entitled to receive fair amount of compensation. The State should not take up a technical plea and defeat the legitimate and just claim. P.N. Bhagawati, CJ., speaking for the Bench observed thus:

... but where land is acquired under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, it would not be fair and just to deprive the holder of his land without payment of the true market value when the law, in so many terms, declares that he shall be paid such market value. The State Government must do what is fair and just to the citizen and should not, as far as possible, except in cases where tax or revenue is received or recovered without protest or where the State Government would otherwise be irretrievably be prejudiced, take up a technical plea to defeat the legitimate and just claim of the citizen.

27. The second proviso to Section 31 being in the nature of estoppel, necessarily, it will be for the person raising a plea of estoppel to establish before the Court necessary facts on which the rule of estoppel is to be applied. Therefore, it will be for the Collector or the State to point out any material, which will lead to an inference that the compensation was not received under protest. In the absence of any such material, when it is not expressly stated by the person interested that he was accepting the award or was accepting the amount of compensation without protest and an application is made under Section 18(1) of the Act within limitation, protest is implied. Invariably in land acquisition matters, persons interested are those who are illiterate and poor agriculturists. There is an implied obligation on the part of the Collector that he must apprise the persons interested of their right to have the amount of compensation determined by the Civil Court in case they are not satisfied with the amount of compensation awarded. In the event of their not exercising their right and agreeing to accept the award or amount of compensation without protest, an express acknowledgement must be obtained. Experience has shown that usually compensation offered by the State to the persons interested are deprived of their property is not adequate and invariably on reference being made to the Civil Court, the amount is enhanced. Under these circumstances, unless it is positively shown that the persons interested were made aware. of their right to have the compensation determined by a Civil Court and they accepted the amount without any demur, only in such a circumstance, an inference can be drawn that they never intended to seek reference. If a person interested is debarred from exercising his right conferred on him under Section 18 of the Act on the ground that he has not expressly stated that he is accepting under protest, the very purpose for which such right was conferred by the statute would become nugatory and illusory. We are, therefore, of the considered view that the law having laid down period of limitation within which reference can be sought and when an application is filed within the prescribed period of limitation, a very valuable right to seek reference for determination of the compensation cannot be taken away merely on a technical plea raised by the State who has deprived the said person of his right to hold the property.