Advocates Appeared:
N.C.CHAKRAVARTI, PURNENDU PROKASH SARKAR, S.K.BISWAS, SHYAMA CHARAN MITTER

Case Summary: Suresh Chandra Roy v. Land Acquisition Collector, Chinsurah (Civil Revn. 155(W) of 1962, High Court of Calcutta, Decided on July 29, 1963) (!)

Facts: An area of land belonging to the petitioner was acquired under the Land Acquisition Act, with compensation awarded amounting to Rs. 57,236.65 np. and Rs. 33,413.25 np. The petitioner was notified on July 9, 1958, to withdraw the amounts. On July 18, 1958, he applied for a reference to court under Section 18, stating he would receive the compensation under protest. Subsequently, on August 12, 1958, he authorized an agent to receive the money; on August 18, 1958, he requested bank drafts; and on January 30, 1959, the agent received the drafts and executed unconditional receipts without any mention of protest. On January 2, 1962, the Collector refused a reference under Section 18, citing Section 31(2), as the compensation was received without protest. The petitioner sought a writ of mandamus under Article 226. [9000045640001][9000045640002]

Affidavits: The Collector affirmed that subsequent applications and the receipt lacked any protest clause, amounting to waiver and estoppel. The petitioner replied that the applications referred to the initial protest undertaking and denied waiver. [9000045640002][9000045640003]

Issue: Whether the petitioner received compensation under protest as required by Section 31(2) of the Land Acquisition Act to entitle him to apply for a reference under Section 18. [judgement_subject][judgement_act_referred]

Holding: Protest must be expressly stated in the application for payment (if made) and in the receipt at the time of receiving the money; an earlier reference application alone does not suffice, nor do subsequent silent applications or receipts. Absent proper protest notation, the right to reference is barred under the second proviso to Section 31(2). The petitioner's actions constituted waiver. [9000045640003][9000045640004][9000045640005][9000045640006]

Decision: Rule discharged; no order as to costs. The same order governed the connected Civil Revision Case 154(W) of 1962. [9000045640006][9000045640007][9000045640008]

Ratio: Receipt of compensation without protest at the time of withdrawal estops a claimant from seeking court reference under Section 18, regardless of prior applications. Protest requires explicit endorsement in withdrawal documents and receipt. [Fact of the Case][Finding of the Court][Ratio Decidendi][Final Decision]