Civil Revision No.5057 of 2006 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH (i) Civil Revision No.5057 of 2006 (O&M) Date of Decision 22.07.2009 Ram Pairy and others ......Petitioners VERSUS State of Punjab and another ......Respondents (ii) Civil Revision No.5058 of 2006 (O&M) Natha Singh and others ......Petitioners VERSUS State of Punjab and another ......Respondents (iii) Civil Revision No.5059 of 2006 (O&M) Charanjit Singh and others ......Petitioners VERSUS State of Punjab and another ......Respondents (iv) Civil Revision No.5060 of 2006 (O&M) Sukhdev Singh and others ......Petitioners VERSUS State of Punjab and another ......Respondents (v) Civil Revision No.5061 of 2006 (O&M) Madan Singh ......Petitioner VERSUS State of Punjab and another ......Respondents Civil Revision No.5057 of 2006 (O&M) 2 CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.N.JINDAL Present: Mr.Arvind Kashyap, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr.Surinder Kapoor, Addl. A.G., Punjab, for the respondents-State. ***** A.N.JINDAL, J(ORAL): This order of mine will dispose of five connected revision petition Nos.5057 to 5061 of 2006 against the order dated 18.05.2006, passed by Land Acquisition Collector-cum-Additional Chief Administrator, P.U.D.A., Jalandhar. Arguments heard. Record perused. The reference has been declined merely on the ground that the petitioners had accepted the award without raising any protest, therefore, the references were not maintainable. Secondly the Land Acquisition Collector could not find any documentary evidence in support of the claim for enhancement and thirdly, the people of the area present at the spot did not raise any objection regarding the rates fixed by the District Level Price Fixation Committee. Having scrutinized the award, it transpires that the Land Acquisition Collector did not try to go deep into the issues. The petitioners, though, had not raised the protest at the time of receiving the compensation yet they filed the reference before the Collector within the period of limitation protesting that adequate compensation was not awarded to them, as such, it would be treated as a protest raised by them. Similar observations were made by the Full Bench of this Court in case Sher Singh vs. Union of India 1982 P.L.J. 494 where it was observed as under:- “I am unable to uphold what appears to me as a hypertechnical Civil Revision No.5057 of 2006 (O&M) 3 and the harsh construction sought to be advocated on behalf of the respondent-Union of India. The matter has to be construed in the light of Section 31(2) of the Act and with particular reference to the proviso thereof:- “31 (1)..(2) If they shall not consent to receive, it, or if there be no person competent to alienate the land, or if there be any dispute as to title to receive the compensation or as to the apportionment of it, the Collector shall deposit the amount of compensation in the Court, to which a reference under Section 18 would be submitted. Provided also that no person who has received the amount otherwise than under protest shall be entitled to make any application under Section 18; Provided also that nothing herein contained shall affect the liability of any person, who may receive the whole or any part of any compensation awarded under this Act, to pay the same to the person lawfully entitled thereto.” It is manifest from the above that the statute does not in any way lay down the precise time or the mode of recording the protest. This, therefore, is necessarily a matter of legal inference. The very time, a landowner prefers a reference under Section 18 of the Act, he, in essence, disputes the compensation awarded and lodges a protest against the same. Consequently, the receipt of compensation by him long after the presentation of an application under Section 18 of the Act cannot possibly be deemed as a waiver or withdrawal of his Civil Revision No.5057 of 2006 (O&M) 4 earlier clear cut claim of enhancement. To put it tersely, filing a reference application under Section 18 is itself a recorded protest within the meaning of the provisos to Section 31(2) of the Act. 15. What appears to be plain or principle and the language of the statute has also the weight of precedent in its favour. It has been so opined in Shanta Bai v. Special Deputy Collector, Land Acquisition, Hyderabad, A.I.R. 1971Andhra Pradesh 117, Tara Chand v. Land Acquisition Collector, Delhi (Shahdara), Delhi, A.I.R. 1971 Delhi 116; and by the Division Bench in The Collector Jabalpur and another v. Kamal Kumar Jain and others, A.I.R. 1973 Madhya Pradesh 288, and within this jurisdiction in Mukhtiar Singh v. The State of Punjab, 1980 R.L.R. 97 (= 1980 P.L.J. 4). Undoubtedly, there is, however, a discordant note struck by Banerjee J., sitting singly in Suresh Chandra Roy v. The Land Acquisition Collector, Chinsurah, A.I.R. 1964 Calcutta 288. This, however, has been considered and not followed in Kamal Kumar Jain's case (supra). For the identical reasons, I would respectfully record my dissent therefrom.” It is manifest from the above that statute does not in any way laid down the precise time or the reference made regarding the protest. This, therefore, is necessarily a matter of legal inference. A land owner preferred a reference under Section 18 of the Act in essence dispute compensation awarded and protest against the same. Consequently, the receipt of compensation by him long after presentation of application under Civil Revision No.5057 of 2006 (O&M) 5 Section 18 of the Act cannot possibly be deemed as a waiver or withdrawal of his earlier claim of enhancement. Filing a reference application under Section 18 itself a recorded protest during the provisions of Section 31(2) of the Act. In case Basant Kumar Jena and another v. State of Orissa and another AIR 1995 Orissa 288 it was observed that law does not require the protest to be in writing. To hold so would amount to rewriting the provision. Written protest, of course, is the best proof. Oral protest may be difficult to substantiate, but is permissible in law. The petitioners have submitted that they have made oral protest as such that would be sufficient protest. Crux of the matter after the acquisition is the market value of the land. The provisions have been enacted in the Act to award reasonable compensation to the petitioners so that they do not feel cheated by the compulsory acquisition and fixation of the compensation at unreasonable rates. As such, the observations, made by the Collector that petitioners did not raise the protest cannot be sustained. The petitioners were just to submit a reference to the Collector which was to be forwarded to the reference Court without going into the evidence by the Collector as the price fixed by the Collector was just an offer and the market value was to be fixed by the reference Court. As regards the objection that villagers did not raise the objections is also of no consequence. Resultantly, I accept the abovesaid five revision petitions and set aside the impugned orders and remit the cases back to the Collector to proceed in accordance with law. (A.N.Jindal) Judge 22.07.2009 mamta-II