SINGLE BENCH 3 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE. ATBILASPURJC.^J Writ Petition JSo.SZ4^ _/2005 l ^-'.^y>" .^ ^y^"" PETITIONER ...^^- : , ^^i^-'' ^y 'y y RESPONDENTS Deoraj Deshmukh S/o Ram Prasad Deshmukh aged about 45 years R/o Suregaon Tah. Dondilohara, Distt. Durg (C.G.) VBRSUS 1] The State of C.G. through the 1 Secretaiy Dept. of Revenue D.K.S. . Bhawan Raipur (C.G.) 2) The Collector Distt. Durg (C.G.) 3] The S.D.O./ Land Acquisition Officer Dandilohara, Distt. Durg WRIT PBTITION UNDER ARTICLB 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INJDIA, _._fc^' XI-HC-22 3TI^T^)T f^;ri^3TI^T ^TT^^cT 7^[ ^i^Kn^i, ^Tfl^^Ko, f^<ni^^< 3T(^T <ra^ ^IM^l ^>NSch^S^^rOQ..f?^ fd^ 4.1 200^ 3:TT^T?^Ta[K?Tf?cT 25-7-2005 Shri Pravin Das, coun^l Shri Sandeep bubeyj respondehts. Heard both the coun^l. With the consent of petition is being disposed of. By this petition, the pe^ the order dated 7-6-2005 Officer, bondilohara, respon^ application moved by the pet| Acquisition Act. 1894, about determination of 1+ie amd The State Government acres of village Suregaon, Teh| purpose of construction of car^ After following the procedure the Land Acquisition Officer the notice the petitioner application for just valuation/c| prevalent price before Officer relying on incorrect a^ l^arned counsel for the parties, this p^ssed reques[Mng al4n9 just valuation/c^mpensation respoi^dent ^I^T^^I^ HTR^ff^'fS^S ^^K ^3:rf^R'3TT^?T or the petitioner, <5ovt. Advocate for the State/ t-itioner has questioned the tegality of by the S.D.O./Lcind Acquisition lent No.3, whereby he rejected the tioner under Section 18 of the Land for reference to the civil Court »untof compensation, acquired the land ad measuring 17.26 si I Dondilohara, District: Durg for the als under Kharkhara Mohdipat Project. under the Act, on award was passed by ,e. respondent No,3. In pursuance of with other noticee submitted an of the lcxnd on the basis of No,3, but the Land Acquisition isessment re9ardin9 prevalent rates of land, has passed theaward. The jaetitioner accepted 1+ie_aw(<ft^tott^r XI-HC-22 3TT^^T^T f^w^n^r ^IW^TfN' ^=S( ^|qi<riq, ^^^(0, [^cni^^< 'BTT^T^^ ^Mc^tl $h^(<=h ^^•^^^^^^^0' ^- 200 -»2 3T1^T ^cn'W^T^T -^ ^rafe^frr wicTf^ te^ <f^^i< ^3Tf^T3TI^?T protest. Copy of the ojrder sheet of the court of SbO/Land Acquisition Officer alon^ with award is Annexure-P/1. Being aggrieved by the said orde^ the petitioner moved on application under Section 18 of the Act prcjiying the reference of the matter to the court for determination. Iffe raised the objection on the ground that similar land situated in th^ whereas, the award has bejen passed taking the value as Rs.890/- per decimal. The respondent N Peru^xl of the impu< Dondilohara submitted th village is valued at Rs.8,000/- per decimal o.3 rejected tiie application. }ned order shows that learned S.D.0, has ordered for rejection of the objection and the Sub-Registrar, 2 statement of sa\e for one year under Section 17(4) of the Act d|nd thereafter, the matter was sent to the District Land Acquisition| Officer, Durg and on that, the Land Acquisition Officer has | aiready passed the award. Since the petitioner has taken comp^nsation, therefore, the same was rejected. Perusal of impugned ordjer further reveals that the petitioner accepted the compensatior^ to ^ub-section (2) of Sect under pratest shall be eni 18.' In this case, the petiti Section 18 envi^xg^ of amount under protest. Second proviso ion 31 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 provides that ^no person v^o has received the amaunt otherwise than ^tled to make any applica+ion under sectian |oner accepted the amount under protest. /t^ige^^ that 'any person intere^ted who has not accep'hsd ffie uwu/'i/ wuy,' hy wrilfisn eipplicatwn fo ^^^(ector, y ^ XI-HC-22 3TI^?T^T f^TWW^T ^RWd^cT Barve <^\& A ^ •yY/ t3 ^^^FnoTsr, ^Tf1^jj^, [^^I<H^< W^i Mstch ffl^^l $h^gch -t-<-----'ft-4 ^- 200 3T^T^cT[.8^:^cT -s- require that the mat^e^ be\ determination of Ihe court\ measurement of liie lancf, the Therefore, in view of Section 18 of the Land Acqu|i under duty bound to refer^ compensation by the Court. In view of the above, th^ is directed to refer the matte^ Parties are entitled for^ ivferred by 1he Collectof for Ihe whether hi^ abjection be to ifte \mount of the campen^ation! jriie above proviso to Section 31 and Ijsition Act. 1894, learned S.D.O. was the matter for consideration of ^i^f<-i41»i^i^^T^te^:i'<^i^K ^3Tf^:T3TI^T writ petition is allowed and the S.D.O. for reference. ^srtified copy of this order. 8d/- L.C. Bhadoo Judge ^^ (^^fe^)