Case Note & Summary
The appellant, Syed Miya s/o Syed Buran, filed two appeals challenging the judgment and award dated 20.8.1993 passed by the Reference Court, which rejected his references under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The appellant's land was acquired by the State of Maharashtra for a public purpose. The Special Land Acquisition Officer awarded compensation, and the appellant allegedly entered into an agreement with the State Government regarding the compensation amount. However, the appellant contended that the agreement was not voluntary; he was compelled to accept the compensation under threat of acquisition and had received the amount under protest. He filed references seeking higher compensation. The Reference Court dismissed the references solely on the ground that the appellant had been paid compensation in terms of the agreement, holding that the references were not maintainable. The appellant argued before the High Court that the Reference Court erred in law by not examining the validity of the agreement or the circumstances under which it was entered into. The State supported the Reference Court's decision. The High Court, after hearing both sides, observed that the mere existence of an agreement does not automatically bar a reference under Section 18. The court must determine whether the agreement was a voluntary settlement or was entered into under coercion or protest. Since the Reference Court had not conducted any such inquiry and had summarily rejected the references, the High Court set aside the impugned judgment and remanded the matters back to the Reference Court for fresh adjudication on merits. The appeals were allowed, and the parties were directed to appear before the Reference Court on a specified date.
Headnote
A) Land Acquisition - Reference under Section 18 - Maintainability - Agreement for compensation - The issue was whether the appellant's reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was maintainable despite having received compensation under an agreement with the State. The Court held that the mere existence of an agreement does not automatically bar a reference; the court must examine whether the agreement was voluntary and without coercion. Since the appellant had received compensation under protest and the agreement was not a voluntary settlement, the reference was maintainable. (Paras 2-5) B) Land Acquisition - Compensation - Agreement - Coercion - The appellant contended that the agreement was not voluntary but was entered into under threat of acquisition and payment was made under protest. The Court noted that the Reference Court had not examined these aspects and had summarily rejected the references. The Court held that such summary rejection was not justified and remanded the matter for fresh consideration on merits. (Paras 3-5)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Reference Court was justified in rejecting the references made under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 on the ground that the appellant had already been paid compensation in terms of an agreement arrived at between him and the State Government.
Final Decision
The appeals are allowed. The impugned judgment and award dated 20.8.1993 passed by the Reference Court are set aside. The matters are remanded back to the Reference Court for fresh adjudication on merits. The parties are directed to appear before the Reference Court on 12th March, 2018.
Law Points
- Right to seek reference under Section 18 of Land Acquisition Act
- 1894 is not barred merely because compensation was paid under an agreement
- unless the agreement was voluntary and without coercion
- Payment under protest or under threat of acquisition does not constitute a valid agreement
- Reference Court must decide maintainability on merits
- not summarily reject
