JUDGMENT :

Hiranmay Bhattacharyya, J.

1. The petitioner has challenged the orders being nos. 3 and 4 both dated June 25, 2025 passed by the Additional District Magistrate (LA), Nadia in this writ petition.

2. The property of the petitioner being RS Plot no. 312 corresponding to LR plot no. 103, JL No. 53, within Mouza – Simultala, under Police Station – Kotwali in the district of Nadia was acquired vide LA Case No. 117/PHE/0910 under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (‘the 1894 Act’, for short). The notice under Section 12(2) of the 1894 Act dated August 22, 2013 was issued and immediately upon receipt of such notice the petitioner by a letter dated August 29, 2013, raised objection against adequacy of the compensation amount determined under the Award. The said written objection was received by the office of the Land Acquisition Collector, Nadia on August 29, 2013. Thereafter a notice dated January 8, 2014 was issued to the petitioner requesting the petitioner to collect the compensation amount from the office of the Special Land Acquisition Officer, Krishnanagar, Nadia within February 15, 2014 failing which the amount will be deposited in the Treasury. The petitioner thereafter received the said amount on March 5, 2014. Since the matter was not referred by the Collector for determination by the Court in terms of Section 18 of the 1894 Act, petitioner submitted a representation dated July 20, 2020 before the Executive Engineer, Public Health Engineering Directorate, Nadia Sub-Division and thereafter demanded justice from the Collector, Nadia vide learned advocate’s letter dated May 5, 2025 requesting such authority to take necessary steps.

3. Mr. Roy learned advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that the written objection submitted by the petitioner against the adequacy of the compensation amount which was received by the office of the Collector, Nadia on August 29, 2013, ought to have been treated as a prayer for making reference under Section 18 of the 1894 Act. In support of such contention, Mr. Roy places reliance upon a decision of the Hon’ble Division Bench in the case of Ramesh Chandra Dhara & Ors. –Vs.- State of West Bengal & Ors., reported at (2014) 1 CHN 716. Mr. Roy further submits that the petitioner received the compensation amount under protest and receipt of the compensation amount under protest is itself sufficient to refer the matter for determination by the Court under Section 18 of the 1894 Act. In support of such contention Mr. Roy places reliance upon a decision of the Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of Narayanaswamy & Anr. –Vs.- The Special Tahsildar for Land Acquisition, Adi Dravidar Welfare, Tiruppur & Anr., reported at 1994 (1) MLJ 393.

4. Mr. Roy, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner places reliance upon a decision of the Hon’ble Division Bench in the case of Kusumlata Khandelwal & Ors. –Vs.- Land Acquisition Collector & Ors., reported at AIR 1974 Cal 396 in support of his contention that the subject-matter of objection against the determination of compensation amount is itself sufficient to make a reference under Section 18 of the 1894 Act.

5. Per contra, learned advocate appearing for the State submits that in the written objection dated August 29, 2013 the petitioner has only prayed for redetermination of the compensation amount. He further submits that no specific prayer for making a reference under Section 18 of the 1894 Act was made. He submits that acceptance of the compensation amount would amount to waiver of his right to make a reference under Section 18 of the 1894 Act.

6. Heard the learned advocates for the parties and perused the materials placed.

7. The Award was passed on August 22, 2013 under the 1894 Act, i.e., prior to coming into force of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (‘the 2013 Act’, for short), which came into force with effect from January 1, 2014. The notice under Sect