( 1 ) THIS appeal is preferred by the appellant challenging the judgment and order dated 19th September, 1991 passed by the learned District Judge, Akola in Land Acquisition Case No. 46 of 1987 rejecting the claim of the appellant for compensation in respect of his land acquired.

( 2 ) THE facts which are no more in dispute are as follows : the land of the appellant was acquired by the State Government in revenue Case No. 36/47/1980-81 of Malkapur. In that, by the Award passed on 19th September, 1986, the amount of compensation awarded for his land acquired was Rs. 4,62, 642/ -. As the compensation awarded was not adequate, the appellant filed an application under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act before the Special Land Acquisition Officer, Akola (who exercised powers of the collector for enhancement of compensation ). The said authority duly examined the application for reference and referred the same to Civil Court. The Civil court, after recording the evidence held that the appellant was entitled to compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/- as claimed in Reference Application. However, the said claim was dismissed by the Reference Court by its judgment and order dated 19-9-1991 holding that there was no written protest recorded by the claimant/appellant while receiving the amount of compensation under the Award. That is how, the present appeal has been preferred by the appellant challenging dismissal of his claim for enhancement of amount of compensation by the reference Court.

( 3 ) MR. G. B. Lohiya, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submitted that the trial Court has committed an error in rejecting the claim only on the ground that the appellant has not recorded his protest while receiving the amount of compensation. He submitted that the Reference Court committed an error in holding that there was no protest. In fact, the appellant has stated, when he was examined before the trial Court, that he had received the amount under protest. That is the statement on oath, which has gone unchallenged. The State has not adduced any evidence before the Reference Court to show that no protest was made by the appellant while receiving the amount of compensation. The learned counsel further submitted that the appellant complied with all the conditions for making reference and as the Land Acquisition Officer was satisfied that there was no bar for making reference, the same was referred to the civil Court and therefore, it was implied and presumed that all the formalities and requirements for making reference have been complied with including the fact that there was oral protest by the appellant at the time when he received the amount of compensation.

( 4 ) PERUSAL of the judgment of the trial Court makes it clear that the trial court has placed reliance on the judgment of this Court reported in 7997 Mh. L. J. 91, Sk. Kahaj Sk. Chotta vs. State of Maharashtra. In that regard, the learned counsel for the appellant submitted that this decision is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of case in view of the fact that there is amendment to section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act by the State of Maharashtra and according to subsection 3 of the said Act, the order of making reference or refusing to make reference is revisable by the High Court under section 115 of the Code of Civil procedure and the Collector is acting as a Court while making reference. Therefore, once the reference is made by the authority to the Court under section 18, the Reference cannot be rejected by the Court on the ground that there was no protest by the land owner while receiving the amount of compensation.

( 5 ) MR. G. B. Lohiya, Advocate for the appellant placed reliance on the decision of this Court in 2005 (1) Mh. L. J. 1048 = 2005 (2) All MR 76, Tanaji Abaso Pawar and others vs. State of Maharashtra and another, in which identical issue was involved and that the High Court held that protest can be lodged in different forms either by specifi

Click Here to Read the rest of this document