ash 1 cra-159.06 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELATE JURISDICTION CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.159 OF 2006 Shri Mehamood Khajabhai Subhedar & Ors. .. Applicants Vs The State of Maharashtra & Ors. .. Respondents ­­ Shri A.V. Katkar i/by Shri Dilip Bodake for the Applicants. Shri A.R. Patil, AGP for Respondent Nos.1 to 3. ­­ CORAM ; A.S. OKA, J DATED : 28TH FEBRUARY, 2011 JUDGMENT : . Heard learned counsel appearing for the Revision Applicants and the learned AGP appearing for the Respondent Nos.1 to 3. 2. This is a Revision Application under Section 18(3) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 ( hereinafter referred to as “the said Act” ) ( As amended by the Maharashtra Act No.38 of 1984). The Applicants made an application for reference under Section 18 of the said Act for reference to the Civil Court for enhancement of compensation. By the impugned order dated 15th June, 2006, the Special Land Acquisition Officer rejected the application for reference on two grounds. The first ash 2 cra-159.06 ground is that though the time of one month was granted to pay court fees, the Applicants have failed to pay the Court fees. The second ground is that there was no evidence produced by the Applicants to show that the compensation amount has been accepted under protest. 3. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the Applicants and the learned AGP appearing for the Respondent Nos.1 to 3. Perused the annexures to the application. In Paragraph 3 of the said application under Section 18 of the said Act made by the Applicants, it is asserted that the notice under Section 12(2) of the said Act was received by the Applicants on 13th February, 2006. The Reference Application was filed by the Applicants on 22nd March, 2006 as is evident from Page 27 of the Revision Application. In Paragraph 3 of the Application, the Applicants have stated that they were not satisfied with the amount of compensation offered by the Special Land Acquisition Officer and, therefore, they accepted the amount under protest. As stated earlier, the Application for reference has been filed on 22nd March, 2006. 4. There is no dispute that the application for reference was made within the stipulated period of limitation. As far as the second ground on which the application for reference was rejected by the Special Land Acquisition Officer is concerned, in Paragraph 3 of the ash 3 cra-159.06 application for reference under Section 18 of the said Act, the Applicants have specifically stated that they have accepted the compensation amount under protest. The Land Acquisition Officer has not stated that the averments made in Paragraph 3 of the said application are incorrect or false. In a given case, even an oral protest can be treated as sufficient proof of the fact that the Applicants have not accepted the award under Section 11 of the said Act. Therefore, the said ground is not at all tenable. 5. As far as non­payment of Court fees is concerned, apart from the fact that it was not necessary that the application under Section 18 of the said Act should have been accompanied with the Court fees, page 41 of the Revision Application shows that the Court fees was paid on 6th May, 2006 and there is an endorsement of the Special Land Acquisition Officer under a signature and stamp showing that the Court fee was paid on 6th May, 2006. In the circumstances, even the first ground on which the application was rejected is completely illegal. 6. Hence, the Civil Revision Application must succeed and I pass the following order. ash 4 cra-159.06 ORDER : (a) The impugned order dated 15th June, 2006 is quashed and set aside and the Special Land Acquisition Officer is directed to make a reference to the Civil Court in accordance with Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. (b) The papers shall be forwarded by the Land Acquisition Officer within a period of four weeks from the date on which an authenticated copy of this judgment is produced before him. (c) Rule is made absolute on above terms with no orders as to costs. ( A.S. OKA, J )