The filing of an application for reference under Section 64 of the RFCTLAR & R Act, 2013, within the limitation period, implies a protest against the award, even if the compensation was accepted without any written protest.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK

L.A.A No. 44 of 2021

In the matter of an application under section 74 of the Right to Fair

Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation

and Resettlement Act, 2013.

----------------------------

Sasmita Senapati

.......

Appellant

-Versus-

Land Acquisition Zone Officer,

Khurda Road, Boudh

.......

Respondent

For Appellant

: Mr. M.K. Mohapatra, Advocate

For Respondent : Mr. G.N. Rout, A.S.C.

----------------------------

CORAM: JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR MISHRA

JUDGMENT

10.01.2023

S.K. MISHRA,J.

1.

This Appeal has been preferred against the judgment dated

25.08.2021, passed by the Presiding Officer LAR & R Authority,

Berhampur, in LAR & R Case No. 89 of 2020 vide which the reference

Petition under Section-64 of the Right to Fair Compensation and

Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act,

2013, shortly, (RFCTLAR & R) Act, 2013, was dismissed solely on the

L.A.A. No.44 of 2021

Page 2 of 8

ground that the present Appellant received the awarded compensation

amount without any protest.

2.

Mr. Mohapatra, learned Counsel for the Appellant submits

that the referral court has mis-directed himself in dismissing the

reference petition on the ground that the Claimant/Appellant has never

raised any objection in writing to the award at any point of time, which is

contrary to the written objection filed by the Respondent under

Annexure-2,

wherein

the

Respondent

admitted

that

the

Appellant/Petitioner has received the compensation under protest.

Further, he submits that there is no express provision under the

RFCTLAR & R Act, 2013 to raise objections after passing of award by the

Collector under Section-37 of the Act, 2013 except filing of reference

Petition under Section-64 of the Act.

3.

He submits that though the Appellant filed an Application

under Section-64 of the Act, 2013 within the period of limitation of the

award stating therein that the award has been passed behind the back of

the Appellant and subsequent thereafter, she has been noticed by the

Respondent to receive the compensation amount, which compelled her to

receive the same under protest and claimed for higher compensation by

filing the Petition to refer the matter to the Authority for determination of

the actual amount and additional amount of compensation for the

acquired land, the Respondent, while denying the aforesaid pleadings in

his

objection,

vide

which

it

was

admitted

that

the

present

Appellant/Petitioner has received the compensation under protest,

L.A.A. No.44 of 2021

Page 3 of 8

erroneously dismissed the application filed under Section-64 of the

RFCTLAR & R Act, 2013.

4.

Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that even if for the

sake of argument, it is accepted that the Appellant/Petitioner has

received the compensation without any protest, in view of the settle

position of law, the very fact of filing an application for reference by the

interested person(present Appellant) within the stipulated period of

limitation will leave to an inference of fact that she never accepted the

compensation without protest and the protest is very much inherent. To

substantiate his argument Mr. Mohapatra relied on the judgments of the

Apex Court in case of Ajit Singh and Others v. State of Punjab and

Others reported in (1994) 4 SCC 67, Chandra Bhan (Dead) v.

Ghaziabad Development Authority reported in (2015) 15 SCC 343, so

also judgment passed by coordinate bench in case of Bulani Swain v.

Special Land Acquisition Officer M.C.I.I. Project and another

reported in (2007) SCC Online Orissa 167 : (2007) 104 CLT 460 and a

recent judgment of this Court dated 13.12.2022, in case of Sujata

Senapati v. Land Acquisition Zone Officer, Khurda Road, Boudh in

L.A.A. No. 41 of 2021.

5.

Learned Counsel for the State submits that the said

judgments are no