http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 3  

PETITIONER: WARDINGTON LYNGDOH & ORS.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: THE COLLECTOR, MAWKYRWAT

DATE OF JUDGMENT17/04/1995

BENCH: RAMASWAMY, K. BENCH: RAMASWAMY, K. HANSARIA B.L. (J)

CITATION:  1995 AIR 2340            1995 SCC  (4) 428  1995 SCALE  (3)702

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                     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

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 3  

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

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 3  

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.