ANOOP V. MOHTA, J.

( 1 ) THIS appeal has been preferred by the State of Maharashtra and thereby, challenged the judgment dated 1st June, 1988, passed by Civil Judge, S. D. Wardha in Land Acquisition Case No. 80 of 1986, which arose out of the Land Acqusition case No. l9/laq-47/79/80 of village Pilapur, district Wardha.

( 2 ) THE respondent herein, original applicant, under section 18 of the Land acquisition Act (for short Act) prayed for enchacement of compensation, by its application dated 20th February, 1984. After considering the material and evidence on the record, by the impunged judgment, the said application was allowed and the applicant herein, State of Maharashtra, directed to pay- additional compensation of Rs. 61, 616/- and solatium of 30% and interest at the rate of 12% p. a. from 7th August, 1980, till realisation.

( 3 ) THE learned Advocate Mr. Mirza, a. G. P. appearing for the appellant basically submitted that such reference application itself was not maintainable as amount of compensation was not accepted under protest as contemplated under section 18 of the Act. Therefore, for want of such protest, there was no question of additional compensation as awarded. He further contended that the learned judge was wrong in shifting the burden on the state of Maharashtra, appellant, to disprove the contention of the apellant that respondent had accepted the compensation under protest. The another argument and submission was that in view of AIR 1986 SC page 106, the respondents were not entitled for separte amount for the orange tress at above rate and or such enhancement. The respondent had already received a compensation for the irrigated land in question. Therefore, there was no question of awarding additional compensation separately for the orange trees. In view of this the impunged order is incorrect. The learned advocate for the appellant has relied on 2003 S. C. C. 128 (Shardadevi Vs. State of Bihar) also.

( 4 ) THE learned Counsel Mr. Sohoni, appearing for the respondent has resisted the contention raised by the apellants Counsel and insited to maintain impunged order dated 1 st june, 1998, He referred and relied on the follwoing cases; AIR 2002 S. C. 3230 (Union of India and another Vs. Hansoli Devi and others), A. I. R. 2004 A. P. 1 (Full Bench) (The district Collector, Kakinada and others etc. V. P. Nagabhushana Rao and others etc.) 1994 (4) Supreme Court Cases 67 (Ajit Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab and others), 1995 (1) Mh. L. J. 930 (Babua Ram and others vs. State of U. P. and another), A. I. R. 1990 a. P. 90 (M. Linga Murthy Vs. District Social welfare Officer, Cuddapati ). He also relied and referred Rule 259 of the Manual of Land acquisition of State of Maharashtra, (for short Manual ).

( 5 ) THERE is nothing pointed out on record to show any prescribed form, manner or mode is provided or prescribed under the act or under the Manual. It is also recorded and observed accordingly, in the various cases specially the case cited by the learned Advocate appearing for the respondent. The relevant paras 6, 25, 26 and 27 of the District collectors case (Supra) which is based on the apex Courts decision in Ajit Singh Vs. Union of India Vs. Hansoli Devi (Supra substantially covered this issue. It is relevant to reproduce the extract of rule 259 of Manual which is as under :"if payment is made to any interested person who has consented to receive it under protest as to the sufficiency of the amount, he should be asked to acknowledge the receipt for such payment by endorsing the remarks "received under Protest" above his singature in the receipt column of the form of receipt prescribed under the above rules. "apex Court in Babua Rams (supra) case after considering the basic provisions and scheme of Land Acqusition Act observed as under in para 38 :-"however, with a view to avioding uncertainty and fluctuation, it would be appropriate that, the Collector, while paying compensation under section 31, shoul