Back
High Court Of Delhi
TARA CHAND - Appellant
Versus
LAND ACQUISITION COLLECTOR, (DELHI SHAHDARA), DELHI - Respondent
Civil Miscellaneous (Main) 35 of 1970
Decided On : 07/27/1970
LAND ACQUISITION ACT - SECTION 18, 31 - RIGHT TO ENHANCED COMPENSATION - WAIVER - IMPLIED WAIVER - PROTEST - RECEIPT OF COMPENSATION - CONSTRUCTION OF PROVISOS TO SECTION 31 (2) - LEGAL RIGHT TO APPLY FOR REFERENCE UNDER SECTION 18 - DESTRUCTION OF RIGHT - APPLICATION FOR REFERENCE ALREADY MADE - SUBSEQUENT ACCEPTANCE OF COMPENSATION - EFFECT.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner's land was acquired by the Government, and an award was made offering compensation. The petitioner applied for reference to the Civil Court for enhanced compensation under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. However, he received the compensation without writing "under protest" in the receipt. The Collector rejected the petitioner's application for reference, holding that the protest should have been entered in the receipt itself.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the petitioner's acceptance of compensation without protest did not bar his right to apply for reference under Section 18 because he had already made the application before receiving the compensation. The court found that the Collector's order was based on an erroneous interpretation of the law and quashed the order.
Issues: 1. Whether the petitioner's acceptance of compensation without protest barred his right to apply for reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act? 2. Whether the protest against the compensation must be entered in the receipt itself?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The right to apply for reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act can be lost either by failing to make the application within the prescribed period of limitation or by receiving the compensation under the award otherwise than under protest. 2. The protest against the compensation need not be entered in the receipt itself. It is sufficient if the petitioner's intention to accept the compensation under protest is made clear at the time of receipt.
Final Decision: The court quashed the Collector's order and directed the Collector to act upon the petitioner's application for reference under Section 18 of the Act and to make the reference to the competent Civil Court under Section 19 of the Act.
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. (!)
( 1 ) THE precise nature of the right to claim enhanced compensation under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter called the "act") and what exactly destroys such a right under Section 31 of the Act has to be considered in this case.
( 2 ) THE petitioner s land was duly acquired by the Government and an award offering compensation to the petitioner was made by the Land Acquisition Collector under Section 11 of the Act Under Section 12 (1) of the Act. such an award is final except as thereinafter provided in the Act- Under Section 18 (1) any person who has not accepted the award may, by a written application to the Collector, require that the matter be referred by the Collector to the Civil Court for the determination by that Court of his objections as to the amount of the compensation etc. within six weeks of the delivery of the award or of the receipt of the notice of the award by him as the case may be Under Section 19, the Collector shall make a reference to the Civil Court stating the objections raised by the applicant under Section 18. Pending such determination of the claim to enhanced compensation by the Civil Court, the Collector on making the award under S. 11 shall tender payment of the compensation awarded by him to the persons interested under S. 31 (1) of the Act. Under S. 31 (2) if such a person shall not consent to receive the compensation, the Collector shall deposit the same in the Court to which a reference under Section 18 is submitted. Then follow the two provisos to Section 31 (2) which are as follows and which have also to be read along with Section 18 (1) of the Act
"provided that any person admitted to be interested may receive such payment under protest as to the sufficiency of the amount: Provided also that no person who has received the amount otherwise than under protest shall be entitled to make any applicatiounder S. 18"
( 3 ) THE effect of the above legal provisions may be stated as follows:
(1) An award and the compensation offered by it are final unless an application within time tor reference to the Civil Court is made by the interested person who does not accept the award including the compensation ottered by it.
(2) A person who has not accepted the award may nevertheless receive the payment of compensation offered by the award under protest, shall be entitled to make any application under Section 18 of the Act
( 4 ) LET us now apply the above law to the facts of the present case. The award was made on 13-6-1969. The claim of the petitioner for compensation under Sections 9 and 10. of the Act was for Rs. 1. 56,650. 00 in addition to the usual solatium of 15 per cent. The amount offered as compensation by the award was only Rs. 30,951. 33 P. The petitioner therefore made an application to the Collector on 10-7-1969 (Annexure A1) requesting that the compensation as award may please be paid to him early specifically stating as follows:
"i am accepting the payment under protest subject to my right tor enhancement of compensation. "on 22-7-1969, the petitioner made an application to the Collector under Sec. 18 of the Act for making a reference to the District Court for enhancement of compensation specifically stating as follows:
". . . . . . . . . . . . . . . that reference as required by law for enhancement of the amount of compensation award by the said award be made to the District Judge. Delhi. "on 24-7-1969 the compensation was paid to the petitioner who signed the receipt of having received the same in the prescribed Form CC- It immediately occurred to the petitioner that. though his previous applications dated 10-7-1969 and 22-7-1969 had already made it dear that he had not accepted the award and wanted the reference to be made to the Civil Court he had not written the words "under protest" in the receipt. Therefore, immediately on the day following, namely, on 25-7-1969 he made an application to the Collector for permission to write those words to remove any doubt. T
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
