Case Summary: Tara Chand v. Land Acquisition Collector (Delhi Shahdara), Delhi

Citation: 1970 Supreme (Del) 158; 1971 AIR (Del) 116; 1971 KHC 1684
Court: High Court of Delhi
Date: July 27, 1970
Bench: V.S. Deshpande, J. (!)

Facts: The petitioner's land was acquired under the Land Acquisition Act, with an award passed on June 13, 1969, offering compensation of Rs. 30,951.33 against the petitioner's claim of Rs. 1,56,650 plus solatium. On July 10, 1969, the petitioner applied for early payment of the awarded compensation, explicitly stating acceptance "under protest subject to my right for enhancement of compensation." (!) On July 22, 1969, the petitioner filed a written application under Section 18 for reference to the Civil Court seeking enhanced compensation. (!) Compensation was tendered and received on July 24, 1969, via a standard receipt (Form CC) without the words "under protest" endorsed thereon. The next day, July 25, 1969, the petitioner applied to the Collector for permission to endorse those words to clarify intent. (!) The Collector issued a show-cause notice and, by order dated post-January 16, 1970, rejected the Section 18 application, holding that protest must appear on the receipt itself, deeming acceptance unconditional and barring the reference. (!)

Issues:
1. Whether acceptance of compensation without endorsing "under protest" on the receipt bars the right to seek reference under Section 18 if the application was filed prior to receipt. (!)
2. Whether protest against sufficiency of compensation must mandatorily be endorsed on the receipt itself under the provisos to Section 31(2). (!) (!)

Key Legal Principles (Ratio Decidendi):
1. The right to apply for reference under Section 18 for enhanced compensation is statutory and finalizes the award under Section 12(1) only if not exercised timely or if compensation is accepted otherwise than under protest per the second proviso to Section 31(2). (!) (!) (!) (!)
2. Once a valid Section 18 application is filed within limitation by a person who has not accepted the award, subsequent receipt of compensation cannot retroactively destroy or waive that pre-existing right absent express or implied waiver; prior written applications clearly manifesting protest suffice to preserve the right. (!) (!) (!) (!)
3. The first proviso to Section 31(2) requires protest to be clear at the time of receipt but does not mandate the words "under protest" on the receipt itself if intent is evident from contemporaneous applications forming part of the same transaction; rigid construction ignoring context (e.g., pending Section 18 application) is erroneous. (!) (!)

Finding and Decision: The Collector's order misinterpreted Sections 18 and 31(2), erroneously prioritizing form (endorsement on receipt) over substance (prior protest and application), and improperly deemed an implied waiver despite uncontroverted evidence of petitioner's intent. (!) (!) The court quashed the order under Article 227, holding acceptance without protest on receipt did not bar the pre-filed Section 18 application, and directed the Collector to process it and make reference to the Civil Court under Section 19. (!) (!) Costs awarded to petitioner. (!)