Wardington
Lyngdoh & Ors Vs. The Collector, Mawkyrwat [1995] INSC 219 (17 April 1995)
Ramaswamy,
K. Ramaswamy, K. Hansaria B.L. (J)
CITATION:
1995 AIR 2340 1995 SCC (4) 428 1995 SCALE (3)702
ACT:
HEAD NOTE:
O R D
E R
Delay
condoned.
Notification
under s.4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act 1890 (for short, `the Act') was
published on December
6, 1988 for
construction of explosive megazines at Nawkyrawat.
The
Collector made his award on May 17, 1989.
On July 5, 1989 the appellants received the compensation under Ex.-B, which is
an agreement signed by them and the Collector.
Thereafter,
on August 8, 1989, the respondents objected to the
amount of compensation determined by the Collector and they claimed enhancement
by reference under s.18. On August 22, 1989,
the Collector asked them to appear before him. On August 29, 1989, on which date when appeared, they requested the Collector
for reference under s.18. Accordingly, it was referred to the Special Judicial
Officer. Objection was taken to the validity of the reference and also their
entitlement to higher compensation. The Special Judicial Officer by his award
and decree dated October
29, 1991 enhanced the
compensation at the rate of Rs.60 to 40 per sq.meter. On appeal by the State,
the High Court by its judgment and decree dated June 7, 1994 reversed the
decree of the reference court and hold that since the petitioners had agreed in
Ex.-B and received compensation subject to the terms and conditions therein
that "in respect of acquisition of land for construction of explosive
magazine to be made herein after by the Collector provided it included the
following matters which to our minds are true, just and equitable. The total
amount of compensation arrived at is fully acceptable to us". The details
are not material for the purpose of this case.
The
only contention raised by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners is
that since the petitioners had objected to the award, though after receiving
the compensation, the reference is valid and the Special Judicial Officer was
within his power to consider proper value of the lands and award compensation
under s.23 of the Act.
Section
31 (1) of the Act enjoins the Collector that he shall tender payment of the
compensation awarded by him to the persons interested entitled thereto
according to the award.....and shall pay it to them.....sub-s(2) envisages that
if they shall not consent to receive it.......the Collector shall deposit the
amount of the compensation in the court to which a reference under s.18 would
be submitted. Second proviso engrafts a rider that "provided also that no
person who has received the amount otherwise than under protest shall be
entitled to make any application under s.18". Section 18(1) envisages that
any person interested "who has not accepted the award" may, by
written application to the Collector, require that the matter be referred by
the Collector for the determination of the court, whether his objection be to
the measurement of the land, the amount of compensation, the person to whom it
is payable, or the apportionment of the compensation among the persons
interested. In sub-s.(2) thereof the grounds on which the objection to the
award is taken shall be required to be stated. The proviso prescribed
limitation within which the application under s.18 should be made. Thereon
under s.19 the Collector is required to make the statement to the court in
writing with details and in the manner mentioned in s.19. The court shall,
thereafter, cause a notice in that behalf served under s.20 on the Collector
and persons interested in the objection for determination of the objection. On
their appearance court shall proceed to enquire into the objection. Section 21
restricts the scope of the enquiry "to a consideration of the interests of
the persons affected by the objection". Section 23(1) lays down the
principles in clauses one to six for determination of the amount of
compensation to be awarded for the acquired land.
It
will thus be clear that the persons interested in the land are entitled to
receive compensation awarded by the Collector under s.11 under protest and
entitled to object to the compensation determined by the Collector. No person
who had received the amount otherwise then under protest should be entitled to
make the application under s.18. In other words, the receipt of the amount
under protest is a condition precedent to make an application under s.18 within
the limitation prescribed under the proviso to sub-s.(2) of s.18 together with
the grounds on which the objections have been taken. Thereon the Collector is
enjoined to make a reference to the Civil Court with the statement in the manner stated in s.19.
The
petitioners professed lack of knowledge of the jointly signed agreement Ex.-B
or its content. This stand stoutly taken at the enquiry before the Judicial
Officer is obviously an after thought. They admitted that they did not file any
protest at the time of receiving compensation. Only one claimant, Releningster Tongwah,
had filed an objection petition that too one week after the receipt of the
compensation without protest. He stated at the enquiry that he signed a blank
paper. He admitted that the signature in the joint statement was his but stated
that the contents of Ex.-B were not explained to him. The High Court minutely examined
the evidence of all the witnesses and concluded that their claim of oral
protest is belied by the written agreement Ex.-B. The High Court also has gone
into the evidence on merits and found that award of compensation to the paddy
fields and other lands at the rates of Rs.60 to Rs.40 per sq. meter was highly
excessive and reliance upon unregistered sale deeds in relation to other
homestead lands was illegal. It is credulous to believe that agricultural lands
would be sold and purchased on square meter basis.
Even
without going into the merits, we hold that the finding of the High Court that
the reference application itself is not maintainable, is perfectly legal and
does not warrant interference.
The
Special leave petition is accordingly dismissed.
Back