IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LPA No.755 of 2008 ----- 1. The State Of Bihar 2. The Collector, Rohtas at Sasaram. 3. The District Land Acquisition Officer, Rohtas at Sasaram … Respondents - Appellants Versus 1. Birendra Prasad Singh 2. Surendra Prasad Singh Both sons of late Kulbansh Singh, residents of village- Mahuli (Tenduni), Police Station, Bikramganj, District-Rohtas. … Petitioners- Respondents ----------- For the appellants : Mrs. Binita Singh, Junior Counsel to Additional Advocate General -III For the respondents : None ------- P R E S E N T Hon'ble the Chief Justice & Hon'ble Mr. Justice Kishore K. Mandal ------ Dated, the 24th September, 2008 The appeal suffers from delay of eighty six days. For condonation thereof, an application (I.A.No.5933/2008) has been made. Even if, we condone the delay in filing the appeal, in our considered view, the appeal is frivolous and devoid of any substance. 2. Ms. Binita Singh, government counsel, does not dispute that at the time of receipt of first instalment of the compensation, the - 2 - expropriated owners (respondents) received the amount under protest. Once expropriated owners had already registered the protest while receiving part of compensation, it is apparent that they had not accepted the compensation under the award. The Land Acquisition Officer, Rohtas committed serious error of law in refusing to make reference to Civil Court on the ground that there was no objection by the expropriated owners at the time of receipt of award amount. He overlooked and ignored the fact that at the time of receipt of first instalment of compensation, they had already registered the protest. 3. The consideration of the matter by the Single Judge does not suffer from any legal infirmity. 4. Ms. Binita Singh, government counsel, would submit that there was no protest when the award came to be passed under Section 11 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1984. The submission overlooks the fact that the respondents’ land was compulsorily acquired by invoking special power in cases of urgency under Section 17 and possession was taken after making 80% of the compensation and admittedly while receiving the said amount, the expropriated owners had registered the protest about compensation. 5. Ms. Binita Singh, government counsel, would, then, submit that there is no justification in imposing cost of Rs.5,000/-. In our view, as a matter of fact, the single judge has been quite considerate in awarding cost of Rs.5,000/- only when the stance of the Land Acquisition Officer was wholly unreasonable. - 3 - 6. We, accordingly, dismiss the appeal. This disposes of I.A.no.5933/2008 as well. R. M. Lodha, CJ Kishore K. Mandal, J. Sunil