Jaysukh Raghla Patel vs The Land Acquisition Officer on 17 August, 2012
He also
invited our attention to the decision of the
Division Bench of this Court in Case of Ramanand
Laxmidhar Kunde & another Vs. Special Land
Acquisition Officer,Goa [1993 (2) Mh.L.J. 1795]. He
submitted that the view taken by the Division Bench
is that once an application for reference is filed
within the prescribed time, the claimants are
entitled to get the compensation re-determined
irrespective of the fact whether they have received
the compensation with or without protest. He,
therefore, submitted that the view taken by the
::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 19:00:19 :::
4 fa1398
Reference Court is erroneous. The learned counsel
for the respondent supported the impugned Judgment
and Order. He pointed out that the Constituted
Attorney of the appellant admitted in the cross
examination that the compensation payable as per the
Award under section 11 of the said Act was accepted
without any protest. He submitted that this
admission shows that the respondent has accepted the
Award under section 11 of the said Act and
therefore, the learned District Judge was justified
in holding that the reference was not competent.