Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 9 of 9 (0.23 seconds)Section 31 in The Land Acquisition Act, 1894 [Entire Act]
Article 300A in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Ajit Singh And Ors vs State Of Punjab And Ors on 16 September, 1999
7. The learned Counsel for the appellant placed reliance on the decision of the Apex Court in , Ajit Singh and Ors. v. State of Punjab and Ors. The Apex Court observed that protest against the Award of the Collector is implied notwithstanding acceptance of the compensation. Therefore, the District Judge and the High Court, therefore, fell into patent error in denying the enhanced compensation to the appellants. That where the claimants receiving without protest the compensation awarded by the Collector, it is held that they are not merely for that reason disentitled to such enhanced amount of compensation. In another words, the decision of the Apex Court has concluded the issue by holding that the claimant cannot be denied enhanced compensation merely because he has received the amount of compensation without recording protest.
Sk. Khaja Sk. Choota vs State Of Maharashtra on 18 July, 1990
4. Perusal of the judgment of the trial Court makes it clear that the trial Court has placed reliance on the judgment of this Court reported in 1991 Mh.L.J. 91, Sk. Kahaj Sk. Chotta v. State of Maharashtra, In that regard, the learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that this decision is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of case in view of the fact that there is amendment to Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act by the State of Maharashtra and according to Sub-section 3 of the said Act, the order of making reference or refusing to make reference is revisable by the High Court under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure and the Collector is acting as a Court while making reference. Therefore, once the reference is made by the authority to the Court under Section 18, the Reference cannot be rejected by the Court on the ground that there was no protest by the land owner while receiving the amount of compensation.
Section 115 in The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [Entire Act]
Section 3 in The Land Acquisition Act, 1894 [Entire Act]
Tanaji Abaso Pawar And Ors. vs State Of Maharashtra And Anr. on 8 September, 2004
The second proviso to Section 31(2) uses the expression "who has received the amount otherwise than under protest'. Admittedly, the word "protest" has not been defined in the said Act. Undisputedly, the statutory provisions do not prescribe any specific mode of lodging the protest at the time of collecting the compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer. Therefore, it cannot be said that the protest contemplated under the said proviso is necessarily by way of specific recording in writing about the protest in the receipt issued by the interested person while accepting the compensation. The Court further held that considering the phraseology of Sections 18 and 28-A of the said Act, a wider meaning will have to be given to the word "protest" to be found in the second proviso to Sub-section (2) of Section 31. Being so, the protest will have to be understood to be an act on the part of the interested person which will disclose his dissatisfaction about the compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer. It can be lodged in different forms either by specifically recording such protest at the time of acceptance of money or even by lodging an application for enhancement of compensation under Section 18 or even orally intimating the authorities that he is not satisfied with the compensation awarded at the time of disbursement of the amount by the Collector under Section 31(1) of the said Act. In case of such an oral intimation, it will be the duty of the compensation disbursing officer to note such protest in the records relating to the payment of compensation for the land acquired. Bearing in mind the number of illiterate people in the country and taking judicial note of the bureaucratic red-tapism and carelessness prevailing almost in every public office, the principle that ignorance of law is no excuse should not be allowed to be stretched to such an extent that it can be a tool in the hands of the authorities to deny the statutory right in relation to the compensation to the owners whose properties are acquired. Otherwise, it may result in encouraging the acts to defeat the very purpose of Article 300-A of the Constitution of India. The provisions of the Act cannot be read and understood by ignoring the mandate of Article 300-A of the Constitution of India. Viewed from this angle, therefore, merely because in the records of the Government there does not find any endorsement by the interested parties that they had received the amount of compensation under protest, it cannot be presumed that the interested parties were satisfied or were not aggrieved by the compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer even though they had filed their application expressing desire for enhancement of the compensation, and it could have been concluded by the Collector that the Collector was entitled to reject the application under Section 18.
State Of Maharashtra vs Shridhar S/O Ramchandra Mokasdar on 22 June, 2004
6. The same view is taken by this Court in a case reported in 2005(1) Mh.L.J. 958 in State of Maharashtra v. Shridhar s/o Ramchandra Mokasdar. This Court held thus :
1