WARDINGTON LYNGDOH AND ORS.versusTHE COLLECTOR, MAWKYRWAT

A                   WARDINGTON LYNGDOH AND ORS.
                                 v.                                                  '.
                     THE COLLECTOR, MAWKYRWAT

                                  APRIL 17, 1995

B               [K. RAMASWAMY AND B.L. HANSARIA, JJ.]

          Land Acquisition Act, 1894:
                                                                                     ...
        Sections 18, 19, 23, 31-Award of compenrntion under an agree-
C ment-Subsequently objecting and claiming higher compensation-Reference
  made and the reference coun awarded higher compensation-Validity of the
  reference-Held: Reference application itself not maintainable.

          In respect of certain lands acquired, the Collector made an award.
    The petitioners received compensation under an agreement signed by tbem
D   and the Collector. Thereafter tbey claimed enhancement by reference
    under S.18. After hearing them, the Collector referred the matter to the
    Special Judicial Officer. Objection was taken to the validity of the reference
    and also their entitlement to higher compensation. However, the compen-
    sation was enhanced at the rate of Rs. 60 to Rs. 40 per sq. meter. On
E   appeal by the State, tbe High Court reversed the decree of tbe reference
    court since tbe appellants had agreed to tbe terms and conditions of tbe
    agreement. Hence this special leave petition.

          The petitioners contended that since they had objected to the award,
    tbough after receiving the compensation, the reference was valid and the
F   Special Judicial Officer was within his power to consider proper value of
    the lands and award compensation under S.23 of tbe Act.

          Dismissing tbe petition, this Court

           HELD : 1. The persons interested in tbe land are entitled to receive
G   compensation awarded by the Collector under s.11 under protest and
    entitled to object to tbe compensation determined by the Collector. No
    person who had received the amount otherwise tban under protest is
    entitled to make application under s.18. Thus the receipt of the amount
    under protest is a condition precedent to make an application under s.18
H   witbin the limitation prescribed under tbe proviso to sub-s.(2) of s.18
                                         354
                    W.LYNGDOH v. COLLECTOR                           355

together with the grounds on which the objections have been taken. There- A
on the Collector is enjoined to make a reference to the Civil Court with
the statement in the manner stated in s.19. (357-D, E)

       2. The petitioners professed lack of knowledge regarding 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 B
admitted that they did not file any protest at the time of receiving compen-
sation. Only one claimant, 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 bot stated that the contents of Ex.·B were C
not explained to him. The High Court minutely examined the evidence of
all the witnesses and concluded that their claim of oral protest was belied
by the written agreement Ex.-B. It had gone into the evidence on merits
and i'ound that award of compensation for 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 D
lands was illegal. It is credulous to .believe that agricultural lands would
be sold and purchased on square meter basis. The finding of the High
Court that the reference application itself is not maintainable, is perfectly
legal and does not warrant interference. (357-F to H, 358-A, BJ
                                                                           E
     CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Special Leave Petition (C)
No. 11083 of 1995.

     From the Judgment and Order dated 7.6.94 of the Gauhati High
Court in F.A.No. 36 of 1993.
                                                                           F
     AM. Mazumdar and S.K Nandy for the Petitioners.

     The following Order of the Court was delivered:

     Delay condoned.
                                                                           G
      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 magazines 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, H
    356                     SUPREME COURT REPORTS                      [1995] 3 S.C.R.

A on August 8, 1989, the respon:lents objected to the amount of compensa-
    tion determined by the Collector and they claimed enhancement by refer-
    ence 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
B   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
c   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 arc true, just
    and equitable. The total amount of compensation arrived al is fully accept-
D   able 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
E   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 ofthe compensation awarded by him to the persons interested
    entitled thereto according to the award ...... and shall pay it to them........ sub-
F   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".
G   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 measure1r.ent of the land, the amount of
    compensation, the p<rsGn to whom it is payable, or tho apportionment of
H   the compensation among the persons interested. In sub-s.(2) thereof the
                                    W.LYNGDOH v. COLLECTOR                               357
              grounds on which the objection to the award is taken shall be required to A
              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 B
              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 person 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 C
              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                 D
              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 enjoioed to make a reference to the           E
              Civil Court with the statement io the manner stated in s.19.

                     The petitioners professed lack of knowledge of the joiotly 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 F
              one claimant, Releniogster Tongwah, bad 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 io the joint statement was bis but stated that the contents of-
              Ex.-B were not explained to him. The High Court mioutely examined the G
              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 bas 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 upcin unregistered sale deeds io relation H
    358                   SUPREME COURT REPORTS                    [1995) 3 S.C.R.

A   to other homestead lands was illegal. It is credulous to believe that agricul-
    tural 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.

B          The Special leave petition is accordingly dismissed.

    G.N.                                                          S.L.P. dismissed.