JUDGMENT - KHANDEPARKAR R.M.S., J.:---In all these matters, common questions of law and facts arise and therefore they were heard together, and are being disposed of by this common judgment.

2. Heard learned Advocates for the parties. Rule. By consent, the rule is made returnable forthwith.

3. In all these matters, the respondent-Collector has rejected the applications under section 18 of Land Acquisition Act, 1894, hereinafter called as "the said Act". Such rejection has been on three grounds. Firstly, that the applicants had not produced materials in support of the claim for enhancement of compensation along with the said applications. Secondly, that the stamp duty on some of the application was paid after the period of limitations prescribed under section 18 for filing of the application. Thirdly, that the reference of the matters to the Civil Courts will result in waste of the valuable time of the Civil Courts.

4. Upon hearing the learned Advocates and perusal of the record, it is seen that undisputedly the land of the applicants was acquired by the Government and compensation was received by the applicants under protest and therefore they were entitled to seek reference of their claim for enhancement of the compensation to the Reference Court under section 18 of the said Act. Accordingly, the applications were filed by the applicants. Some of the applications were filed with deficit Court fee whereas some others were filed without any Court fee therewith. All such applications were rejected by the Collector.

5. Section 18 of the said Act clearly provides that when the applicant accepts the compensation under protest and requests for reference of his claim for the enhancement of the compensation to the reference Court, and in case the same is filed by the interested person within the limitations prescribed under the provision of sub-section (2) of section 18, the Collector has to refer the same to the Reference Court. The provisions of law contained therein do not authorise the Collector to reject such application on any ground other than that the application is beyond the period of limitation or that the application is not in relation to the claim for enhancement for compensation awarded for acquisition of land or that the application is not by an interested person. In fact, law in that regard is well settled. If the application is found to be within the period of limitation, then it is necessary to forward the same forthwith to the Reference Court. Once it is not disputed that the application is within the time, the Collector after verifying that the applicant has paid proper Court fees, has necessarily to forward such application to the Reference Court. It is not for the Collector to decide as to whether the applicant has sufficient evidence in support of his claim for enhancement of compensation or not. That is entirely for the Reference Court to decide. Therefore rejection of the application on the ground that the applicant failed to produce material in respect of the justification for enhancement of compensation is totally illegal and cannot be sustained.

6. As regards the ground pertaining to the deficit Court fee entitling the Collector to reject the application, reliance is sought to be placed in the decision of the Division Bench of the Gujarat High Court in the case of (Mohan Mulji v. Special Land Acquisition Officer, Rajpila, District Broach and another)1, reported in A.I.R. 1967 Gujrat 154 and of the learned Single Judge in the case of (Bhagwan Pandurang Patil v. Special Land Acquisition Officer)2, reported in 1986 Maharashtra Law Journal 181. The contention of the learned Government Advocate is that if the applicant fails to pay the Court fees within the period of limitation during which the application for reference is required to be filed, in terms of the provisions of section 18 of the said Act, the same is to be rejected. In Mohan Mulji case (supra) the Division Bench of the Gujrat High Court has held that "th

Click Here to Read the rest of this document