Case Note & Summary
The dispute arose from land acquisition proceedings initiated under the Land Acquisition Act, 1890 for the construction of explosive magazines at Nawkyrawat. A notification under Section 4(1) was published on December 6, 1988, and the Collector made an award on May 17, 1989. The claimants received compensation on July 5, 1989, under Ex.-B, a written agreement signed by them and the Collector, which stated that the total amount of compensation arrived at was fully acceptable to them. Subsequently, on August 8, 1989, the claimants objected to the compensation amount and sought enhancement through a reference under Section 18. The Collector referred the matter to the Special Judicial Officer, who by award dated October 29, 1991, enhanced the compensation to Rs.60 to Rs.40 per square meter. The State appealed, and the High Court by judgment dated June 7, 1994, reversed the reference court's decree, holding that the reference application was not maintainable because the claimants had received compensation without protest and had accepted the award by written agreement. The claimants then filed a special leave petition before the Supreme Court. The only contention raised on their behalf was that the reference was valid despite the receipt of compensation without protest, as they had objected to the award. The Supreme Court analyzed the relevant provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1890, particularly Sections 18, 31, and 23, and reiterated that the second proviso to Section 31 explicitly bars any person who has received compensation otherwise than under protest from making an application under Section 18. The Court observed that the claimants had admitted that they did not file any protest at the time of receiving compensation, and only one claimant had filed an objection petition one week after receipt without protest. The High Court had minutely examined the evidence and concluded that the oral protest claim was belied by the written agreement Ex.-B. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's finding that the reference application itself was not maintainable, without going into the merits of the compensation amount. Accordingly, the special leave petition was dismissed.
Headnote
A) Land Acquisition - Reference under Section 18 - Maintainability of Reference - Land Acquisition Act, 1890, Sections 18, 31(1), 31(2) proviso - Claimants who received compensation without protest and signed an agreement accepting the award were barred from seeking enhancement by reference; the High Court's finding of non-maintainability was upheld; Held that receipt of compensation under protest is a condition precedent for a valid reference. (Paras 1-3) B) Land Acquisition - Protest Requirement - Condition Precedent - Land Acquisition Act, 1890, Section 31 proviso - The second proviso to Section 31 bars any person who received compensation otherwise than under protest from applying under Section 18; oral protest claims were belied by the written agreement Ex.-B; Held that no protest at the time of receipt rendered the reference invalid. (Paras 1-3) C) Land Acquisition - Evidence - Written Agreement vs Oral Protest - Land Acquisition Act, 1890, Section 18 - The High Court minutely examined evidence and found the written agreement contradicted oral protest; reliance on unregistered sale deeds for land valuation was illegal; agricultural land not sold per square meter; Held that the High Court's findings on merits did not warrant interference. (Paras 1-3)
Issue of Consideration
Whether a reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1890 is maintainable when the claimants received compensation without protest and signed an agreement accepting the awarded amount.
Final Decision
The special leave petition was dismissed. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's finding that the reference application under Section 18 was not maintainable because the claimants received compensation without protest and accepted the award by written agreement.
Law Points
- Receipt of compensation under protest is a condition precedent for making an application under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act
- 1890
- a person who received compensation otherwise than under protest is barred from making an application under Section 18
- a written agreement accepting the award amount belies any claim of oral protest
- reference under Section 18 is not maintainable when the claimant signed an unconditional acceptance of compensation
- the High Court finding that the reference application itself is not maintainable is legal and does not warrant interference
