Narayanaswamy and anr. Vs. the Special Tahsildar for Land Acqusition, Adi Dravidar Welfare and anr. - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
- orderk.m. natarajan, j.1. the above writ petition has been filed for the issuance of a writ of mandamus, directing the first respondent to refer the matter to the civil court for determining the amount of compensation payable to the petitioner for the acquisition of their land in s. no. 408/2 to an extent of 17 1/2 cents in angeripalayam, chettipalayam village, palladam taluk, coimbatore district.2. brief facts which are necessary for the disposal of this writ petition can be stated as follows:the petitioners are the joint owners of an extent of 17.50cents in s. no. 408/2, angeripalayam, chettipalayam village, palladam taluk, coimbatore district. proceedings were taken under the land acquisition act (hereinafter referred to as 'the act') by the respondents for the purpose of providing house sites to adi dravidars. according to the petitioner, though no notice under sections 9(3) and 10 of the act was issued to him, the petitioner was informed that he should appear before the first respondent on 30.3.1984 and accordingly he appeared before the first respondent on that day. at that time, the petitioner was informed that a sum of rs. 5,390.65 was being awarded as compensation to him towards his share of 17 1/2 cents in g.s. no. 408 chettipalayam. immediately, the petitioner told the first respondent that the amount as determined by the first respondent was very low and that the petitioner was not prepared to accept the said sum, for which the first respondent replied him that, if the petitioner was disputing the correctness of the amount awarded by the first respondent, the petitioner could receive the said sum only under the protest and that ultimately, the civil court on a reference under section 18 of the act would decide the correct amount of compensation payable to the petitioner's share. therefore, the petitioner had received the said sum of rs. 5,390.65 under protest. the petitioner had also signed the receipt stating 'received under protest'. subsequently, though the petitioner was expecting that the first respondent would refer the matter relating to the determination of amount towards compensation payable to him to the civil court, he did not receive any notice from the civil court in that regard. but the petitioner came to know from the land owner one kuppammal that the first respondent was referring the matter for determination of enhanced compensation in respect of the other land owner, viz., one jagadambal alone and not the case of the petitioner, which necessitated the petitioner to submit a representation on 30.6.1984 to the first respondent. according to the petitioner till the date of filing of the present writ petition, the matter had not been referred to the civil court for adjudication under section 18 of the act. it was only under those circumstances, the present writ petition came to be filed.3. a counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents, wherein it is stated that notices under sections 9(3) and 10 of the act were issued on 13.3.1984, that after receipt of the said notices the petitioner also appeared for the enquiry and that compensation amount was also received by the petitioner. it is further stated in the counter-affidavit that it is true that the amount was received only under protest, but no application was received from the petitioner within six weeks for referring the matter to civil court as contemplated under section 18(2) of the act and that no representation was received by the land acquisition officer on 30.6.1984. it is also specifically stated in the counter that as the claim for enhanced compensation is not based on any documentary evidence, this writ petition deserves to be dismissed as devoid of merit.4. i have heard the rival submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for both parties. it is seen that admittedly at the time of receiving the amount, the petitioner protested against the quantum of the said sum and that while receiving the amount, the petitioner made an endorsement in the receipt stating 'received under protest'. according to the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, this itself is sufficient to refer the matter to the civil court for the purpose of deciding the issue under section 18 of the act. learned counsel appearing for the petitioners also drew my attention to a division bench judgment of this court reported in the deputy collector, revenue, karaikal v. angelene devadoss 1992 w.l.r. 137, wherein the division bench of this court after referring to the earlier judgment rendered by a division bench of this court in venkataswami naidu v. the state of madras : (1964)1mlj262 , has held as follows:.in the present case the written endorsement of protest could not be read in futility. obviously, the petitioner had a desire to obtain enhanced compensation. she had expressed that desire by making the written endorsement of protest. on the facts and circumstances of the case, we think it is legitimate to construe the written endorsement of pro test as nothing short of a demand for reference and that should suffice the purpose of section 18(1) of the act.in my considered opinion, the said ratio laid down by the division bench of this court in the decision referred to supra squarely applies to the facts and circumstances of the present case and applying the said ratio laid down by the division bench of this court in the decision referred to above, this writ petition has to be allowed and the matter has got to be referred to the civil court for adjudication.5. in the result, this writ petition shall stand allowed, as prayed for by the petitioners. the first respondent is directed to refer the matter to the civil court for determining the amount of compensation payable to the petitioners under section 18 of the act. there will be no order as to costs.

Judgment:
ORDER

K.M. Natarajan, J.

1. The above writ petition has been filed for the issuance of a writ of mandamus, directing the first respondent to refer the matter to the civil court for determining the amount of compensation payable to the petitioner for the acquisition of their land in S. No. 408/2 to an extent of 17 1/2 cents in Angeripalayam, Chettipalayam Village, Palladam Taluk, Coimbatore District.

2. Brief facts which are necessary for the disposal of this writ petition can be stated as follows:

The petitioners are the joint owners of an extent of 17.50cents in S. No. 408/2, Angeripalayam, Chettipalayam Village, Palladam Taluk, Coimbatore District. Proceedings were taken under the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') by the respondents for the purpose of providing house sites to Adi Dravidars. According to the petitioner, though no notice under Sections 9(3) and 10 of the Act was issued to him, the petitioner was informed that he should appear before the first respondent on 30.3.1984 and accordingly he appeared before the first respondent on that day. At that time, the petitioner was informed that a sum of Rs. 5,390.65 was being awarded as compensation to him towards his share of 17 1/2 cents in G.S. No. 408 Chettipalayam. Immediately, the petitioner told the first respondent that the amount as determined by the first respondent was very low and that the petitioner was not prepared to accept the said sum, for which the first respondent replied him that, if the petitioner was disputing the correctness of the amount awarded by the first respondent, the petitioner could receive the said sum only under the protest and that ultimately, the civil court on a reference under Section 18 of the Act would decide the correct amount of compensation payable to the petitioner's share. Therefore, the petitioner had received the said sum of Rs. 5,390.65 under protest. The petitioner had also signed the receipt stating 'received under protest'. Subsequently, though the petitioner was expecting that the first respondent would refer the matter relating to the determination of amount towards compensation payable to him to the civil court, he did not receive any notice from the civil court in that regard. But the petitioner came to know from the land owner one Kuppammal that the first respondent was referring the matter for determination of enhanced compensation in respect of the other land owner, viz., one Jagadambal alone and not the case of the petitioner, which necessitated the petitioner to submit a representation on 30.6.1984 to the first respondent. According to the petitioner till the date of filing of the present writ petition, the matter had not been referred to the civil court for adjudication under Section 18 of the Act. It was only under those circumstances, the present writ petition came to be filed.

3. A counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents, wherein it is stated that notices under Sections 9(3) and 10 of the Act were issued on 13.3.1984, that after receipt of the said notices the petitioner also appeared for the enquiry and that compensation amount was also received by the petitioner. It is further stated in the counter-affidavit that it is true that the amount was received only under protest, but no application was received from the petitioner within six weeks for referring the matter to civil court as contemplated under Section 18(2) of the Act and that no representation was received by the Land Acquisition Officer on 30.6.1984. It is also specifically stated in the counter that as the claim for enhanced compensation is not based on any documentary evidence, this writ petition deserves to be dismissed as devoid of merit.

4. I have heard the rival submissions made by the learned Counsel appearing for both parties. It is seen that admittedly at the time of receiving the amount, the petitioner protested against the quantum of the said sum and that while receiving the amount, the petitioner made an endorsement in the receipt stating 'received under protest'. According to the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners, this itself is sufficient to refer the matter to the civil court for the purpose of deciding the issue under Section 18 of the Act. Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners also drew my attention to a Division Bench judgment of this Court reported in The Deputy Collector, Revenue, Karaikal v. Angelene Devadoss 1992 W.L.R. 137, wherein the Division Bench of this Court after referring to the earlier judgment rendered by a Division Bench of this Court in Venkataswami Naidu v. The State of Madras : (1964)1MLJ262 , has held as follows:.In the present case the written endorsement of protest could not be read in futility. Obviously, the petitioner had a desire to obtain enhanced compensation. She had expressed that desire by making the written endorsement of protest. On the facts and circumstances of the case, we think it is legitimate to construe the written endorsement of pro test as nothing short of a demand for reference and that should suffice the purpose of Section 18(1) of the Act.

In my considered opinion, the said ratio laid down by the Division Bench of this Court in the decision referred to supra squarely applies to the facts and circumstances of the present case and applying the said ratio laid down by the Division Bench of this Court in the decision referred to above, this writ petition has to be allowed and the matter has got to be referred to the civil court for adjudication.

5. In the result, this writ petition shall stand allowed, as prayed for by the petitioners. The first respondent is directed to refer the matter to the civil court for determining the amount of compensation payable to the petitioners under Section 18 of the Act. There will be no order as to costs.