Madhya Pradesh High Court
The State Of Madhya Pradesh vs Pulandar Singh on 23 June, 2025
Author: Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia
Bench: G. S. Ahluwalia
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:12840
1 F.A. No. 557 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE G. S. AHLUWALIA
ON THE 23rd OF JUNE, 2025
FIRST APPEAL No. 557 of 2021
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Versus
PULANDAR SINGH
Appearance:
Shri A.K.Nirankari, Government Advocate for appellant/State.
Shri Chetan Kanungo, Advocate for respondent.
JUDGMENT
This appeal, under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short
“the Act”) , has been filed against the order/Award dated 27/1/2021 passed by
First Additional District Judge, Gohad, District Bhind in Land Acquisition MJC
Case No. 22 of 2015 by which reference filed by respondent has been allowed.
2. It is submitted by Counsel for parties, that this Court by a separate order
passed in F.A. No. 264 of 2021 passed in the case of State of M.P. and others
Vs. Lokendra Singh has decided the identical question of law and this appeal is
also covered by the order passed in the case of Lokendra Singh (Supra).
3. Considered the submissions made by Counsel for the parties.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ANAND
SHRIVASTAVA
Signing time: 6/30/2025
11:05:27 AM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:12840
2 F.A. No. 557 of 2021
4. This Court in the case of Lokendra Singh (Supra) has passed the
following order :
“1. This appeal, under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act,
1894 (for short “the Act”) , has been filed against the order/Award
dated 13.07.2020 passed by Additional Judge to the Court of First
Additional District Judge, Gohad, District Bhind in Land Acquisition
MJC Case No. 16 of 2015 by which reference filed by respondent has
been allowed.
2. It is not out of place to mention here that against the award
passed by Land Acquisition Officer, a reference was made under
Section 18 of Land Acquisition Act. By impugned award, the Trial
Court has enhanced the compensation amount. It was informed by
Counsel for the parties, that being dissatisfied by the award passed by
the Reference Court, the Land owners have also filed First Appeal.
3. As a general practice, all the appeals arising out of one
judgment and decree or award should be heard analogously, but in the
present case, it was submitted by Counsel for appellant, that the State
has not questioned the quantum of compensation and the appeal is
being pressed only on two grounds i.e., that the reference was barred
by time and since, the respondent/land owner had received the
compensation amount therefore, the reference is not maintainable.
4. In view of the grounds of attack, this Court is of the
considered opinion, that large number of appeals are pending but
since, the question for consideration in both the appeals, i.e., by the
State and the land owners, are not overlapping each other and the
appeal filed by the State can be decided without adversely effecting
the ground regarding quantum of compensation which is the subject
matter of appeal filed by land owner, therefore, the appeal filed by the
State is being decided.
5. The facts necessary for disposal of present appeal, in short, are
that a notification was issued for acquisition of 2.52 hectares of land
for construction of canal and accordingly in Land Acquisition Case
Number 21/2012-13/A-82, Award dated 17/9/2013 was passed and
Land Acquisition Officer awarded compensation @ ₹4,30,167 per
hectare. Being aggrieved by the said Award, respondent preferred an
application under Section 18 of the Act on 23.08.2014. The matterSignature Not Verified
Signed by: ANAND
SHRIVASTAVA
Signing time: 6/30/2025
11:05:27 AM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:128403 F.A. No. 557 of 2021
was referred by Collector to District Court for answering the
reference. The Additional Judge to the Court of First Additional
District Judge, Gohad, District Bhind by Award dated 13.07.2020
passed in MJC Number 16 of 2015 allowed the reference and awarded
₹10,50,000/- per hectare by way of compensation.
6. Being aggrieved by the Award passed by the Court below, it is
submitted by counsel for appellant that reference application was
barred by time. It is further submitted that as the respondent had
accepted the compensation amount without any demur, therefore he is
estopped from filing an application under Section 18 of the Act and
relied upon the judgment passed by Supreme Court in the case of
State of Punjab Vs. Satinder Singh reported in (1995) 3 SCC 330.
7. Per contra, the appeal is vehemently opposed by counsel for
respondent. It is submitted that as per the provisions of Section 18(2)
of the Act, the reference application has to be filed within a period of
6 weeks from the date of Award in case the land owner was present.
However, if the Award is passed in absence of land owner, then
reference application could have been filed within a period of 6 weeks
from the date of receipt of notice under Section 12 of the Act or
within a period of 6 months from the date of Award of Collector,
whichever is earlier. It is submitted that admittedly neither the
respondent was present at the time of passing of Award nor any notice
under Section 12(2) of the Act was given to respondent. Immediately
after the respondent came to know about the impugned Award, then
he gave an application for supply of certified copy which was supplied
on 1.8.2014 and accordingly on 23.08.2014 an application under
Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act was filed for making the
reference. It is submitted that the words “from the date of the
Collector’s award” as mentioned in Section 18(2)(b) of the Act cannot
be given a narrow meaning and it would also include “from the date of
knowledge.” It is further submitted that the respondent has
specifically stated that he had received the compensation amount
under protest. It is submitted that even if the amount is received
without any protest, still it cannot be inferred that the land owner was
aware of the contents of award and therefore it is submitted that the
acceptance of compensation amount, whether under protest or, would
not estop the land owner from filing an application under Section 18Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ANAND
SHRIVASTAVA
Signing time: 6/30/2025
11:05:27 AM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:128404 F.A. No. 557 of 2021
of the Act and relied upon the judgment passed by the Supreme Court
in the case of Bhagwan Das &Orsvs State Of.U.P. (2010) 3 SCC
545, Vijay MahadeoraoKubadevs State Of Maharashtra (2019) 2
MPLJ 529 (SC).
8. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties.
Whether reference was barred by time
9. Section 18 of Land Acquisition Act reads as under :
18. Reference to Court.–(1) 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 the compensation, the
persons to whom it is payable, or the apportionment of the
compensation among the persons interested.
(2) The application shall state the grounds on which objection to
the award is taken:
Provided that every such application shall be made,–
(a) if the person making it was present or represented before the
Collector at the time when he made his award, within six weeks
from the date of the Collector‟s award;
(b) in other cases, within six weeks of the receipt of the notice
from the Collector under Section 12, sub-section (2); or within
six months from the date of the Collector‟s award, whichever
period shall first expire.
10. Admittedly, the respondent was not present at the time of
passing of award, therefore, Section 18(2)(i) of Land Acquisition Act,
would not apply.
11. Now, the next question for consideration is that whether any
notice was ever given by Collector under Section 12(2) of Land
Acquisition Act or not?
12. The respondent, in para 3 of his application filed under
Section 18 of Land Acquisition Act, had specifically pleaded that no
notice under Section 12(2) of Land Acquisition Act was given. The
appellants did not deny this fact in their written statement. A solitary
stand was taken by the appellants that the respondent was aware of the
award from the date of its pronouncement. The respondent in his
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ANAND
SHRIVASTAVA
Signing time: 6/30/2025
11:05:27 AM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:12840
5 F.A. No. 557 of 2021
affidavit filed under Order 18 rule 4 CPC had specifically stated that
no notice under Section 12 of Land Acquisition Act was given. The
respondent has examined AwadheshPratap Singh Yadav who has
stated that information regarding passing of award was given by
Kotwar by beat of drum.
13. First of all, it is made clear that no defence was taken by the
appellants in their written statement, that any public notice was given
to the villagers by Kotwar by beat of drums. However, the moot
question for consideration is that whether general notice by beat of
drums can be said to be sufficient compliance of Section 12(2) of
Land Acquisition Act 1894 or not?
14. The aforesaid question is no more res integra. The Supreme
Court in the case of PremjiNathu v. State of Gujarat, reported in
(2012) 5 SCC 250 has held as under:
15. What needs to be emphasised is that along with the notice
issued under Section 12(2) of the Act, the landowner who is not
present or is not represented before the Collector at the time of
making of award should be supplied with a copy thereof so that
he may effectively exercise his right under Section 18(1) to seek
reference to the court.
16. In Harish Chandra Raj Singh v. Land Acquisition Officer,
this Court was called upon to decide whether the expression
“date of award” is to be interpreted with reference to the time
when the award is signed by the Collector or from the date the
affected party comes to know about the same and held as under:
(AIR pp. 1503-04, paras 5-6)
“5. … Therefore, if the award made by the Collector is in
law no more than an offer made on behalf of the
Government to the owner of the property then the making
of the award as properly understood must involve the
communication of the offer to the party concerned. That is
the normal requirement under the contract law and its
applicability to cases of award made under the Act cannot
be reasonably excluded. Thus considered the date of the
award cannot be determined solely by reference to the time
when the award is signed by the Collector or delivered by
him in his office; it must involve the consideration of theSignature Not Verified
Signed by: ANAND
SHRIVASTAVA
Signing time: 6/30/2025
11:05:27 AM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:128406 F.A. No. 557 of 2021
question as to when it was known to the party concerned
either actually or constructively. If that be the true position
then the literal and mechanical construction of the words
„the date of the award‟ occurring in the relevant section
would not be appropriate.
6. There is yet another point which leads to the same
conclusion. If the award is treated as an administrative
decision taken by the Collector in the matter of the
valuation of the property sought to be acquired it is clear
that the said decision ultimately affects the rights of the
owner of the property and in that sense, like all decisions
which affect persons, it is essentially fair and just that the
said decision should be communicated to the said party.
The knowledge of the party affected by such a decision,
either actual or constructive, is an essential element which
must be satisfied before the decision can be brought into
force. Thus considered the making of the award cannot
consist merely in the physical act of writing the award or
signing it or even filing it in the office of the Collector; it
must involve the communication of the said award to the
party concerned either actually or constructively. If the
award is pronounced in the presence of the party whose
rights are affected by it it can be said to be made when
pronounced. If the date for the pronouncement of the
award is communicated to the party and it is accordingly
pronounced on the date previously announced the award is
said to be communicated to the said party even if the said
party is not actually present on the date of its
pronouncement. Similarly if without notice of the date of
its pronouncement an award is pronounced and a party is
not present the award can be said to be made when it is
communicated to the party later. The knowledge of the
party affected by the award, either actual or constructive,
being an essential requirement of fair play and natural
justice the expression „the date of the award‟ used in the
proviso must mean the date when the award is either
communicated to the party or is known by him either
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ANAND
SHRIVASTAVA
Signing time: 6/30/2025
11:05:27 AM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:12840
7 F.A. No. 557 of 2021
actually or constructively. In our opinion, therefore, it
would be unreasonable to construe the words „from the
date of the Collector‟s award‟ used in the proviso to
Section 18 in a literal or mechanical way.”
(emphasis supplied)
17. In State of Punjab v. QaisarJehan Begum, the principle laid
down in Harish Chandra case was reiterated and it was held:
(AIR p. 1607, para 5)
“5. … It seems clear to us that the ratio of the decision in
Harish Chandra case is that the party affected by the
award must know it, actually or constructively, and the
period of six months will run from the date of that
knowledge. Now, knowledge of the award does not mean a
mere knowledge of the fact that an award has been made.
The knowledge must relate to the essential contents of the
award. These contents may be known either actually or
constructively. If the award is communicated to a party
under Section 12(2) of the Act, the party must be obviously
fixed with knowledge of the contents of the award whether
he reads it or not. Similarly when a party is present in
court either personally or through his representative when
the award is made by the Collector, it must be presumed
that he knows the contents of the award. Having regard to
the scheme of the Act we think that knowledge of the
award must mean knowledge of the essential contents of
the award.”
(emphasis supplied)
18. In Bhagwan Das v. State of U.P. this Court interpreted
Section 18 and laid down the following propositions: (SCC pp.
553-54, para 28)
“(i) If the award is made in the presence of the person
interested (or his authorised representative), he has to
make the application within six weeks from the date of the
Collector‟s award itself.
(ii) If the award is not made in the presence of the person
interested (or his authorised representative), he has to
make the application seeking reference within six weeks of
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ANAND
SHRIVASTAVA
Signing time: 6/30/2025
11:05:27 AM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:12840
8 F.A. No. 557 of 2021
the receipt of the notice from the Collector under Section
12(2).
(iii) If the person interested (or his representative) was not
present when the award is made, and if he does not receive
the notice under Section 12(2) from the Collector, he has
to make the application within six months of the date on
which he actually or constructively came to know about
the contents of the award.
(iv) If a person interested receives a notice under Section
12(2) of the Act, after the expiry of six weeks from the
date of receipt of such notice, he cannot claim the benefit
of the provision for six months for making the application
on the ground that the date of receipt of notice under
Section 12(2) of the Act was the date of knowledge of the
contents of the award.”
19. The Court in Bhagwan Das then held: (SCC p. 554, paras 30-
31)
“30. When a person interested makes an application for
reference seeking the benefit of six months‟ period from
the date of knowledge, the initial onus is on him to prove
that he (or his representative) was not present when the
award was made, that he did not receive any notice
under Section 12(2) of the Act, and that he did not have the
knowledge of the contents of the award during a period of
six months prior to the filing the application for reference.
This onus is discharged by asserting these facts on oath.
He is not expected to prove the negative. Once the initial
onus is discharged by the claimant/person interested, it is
for the Land Acquisition Collector to establish that the
person interested was present either in person or through
his representative when the award was made, or that he
had received a notice under Section 12(2) of the Act, or
that he had knowledge of the contents of the award.
31. Actual or constructive knowledge of the contents of the
award can be established by the Collector by proving that
the person interested had received or drawn the
compensation amount for the acquired land, or had attested
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ANAND
SHRIVASTAVA
Signing time: 6/30/2025
11:05:27 AM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:12840
9 F.A. No. 557 of 2021
the mahazar/panchnama/proceedings delivering possession
of the acquired land in pursuance of the acquisition, or had
filed a case challenging the award or had acknowledged
the making of the award in any document or in statement
on oath or evidence. The person interested, not being in
possession of the acquired land and the name of the State
or its transferee being entered in the revenue municipal
records coupled with delay, can also lead to an inference of
constructive knowledge. In the absence of any such
evidence by the Collector, the claim of the person
interested that he did not have knowledge earlier will be
accepted, unless there are compelling circumstances not to
do so.”
* * * *
21. A careful reading of the averments contained in Para 2 of the
application filed by the appellant under Section 18(1) shows that
the notice issued by the Collector under Section 12(2) was served
upon him on 22-2-1985. Thereafter, his advocate obtained
certified copy of the award and filed application dated 8-4-1985
for making a reference to the Court. This implies that the copy of
the award had not been sent to the appellant along with the notice
and without that he could not have effectively made an
application for seeking reference.
22. On behalf of the State Government, no evidence was
produced before the Reference Court to show that the copy of the
award was sent to the appellant along with the notice.
Unfortunately, while deciding Issue 3, this aspect has been
totally ignored by the Reference Court which mechanically
concluded that the application filed on 8-4-1985 was beyond the
time specified in Section 18(2)(b). The learned Single Judge of
the High Court also committed serious error by approving the
view taken by the Reference Court, albeit without considering
the fact that the notice issued by the Collector under Section
12(2) was not accompanied by a copy of the award which was
essential for effective exercise of right vested in the appellant to
seek reference under Section 18(1).
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ANAND
SHRIVASTAVA
Signing time: 6/30/2025
11:05:27 AM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:12840
10 F.A. No. 557 of 2021
15. The Supreme Court in the case of Vijay
MahadeoraoKubadeVs State of Maharashtra reported in (2018) 8
SCC 266 has also relied upon the judgment passed in the case of
PremjiNathu (Supra).
16. Thus, it is clear that no notice under Section 12(2) of Land
Acquisition Act was ever served upon the respondent and no copy of
the award was ever supplied to the respondent, therefore, a specific
pleading was made by the respondent, that when he came to know
about passing of award, then on 14-72014, he filed an application for
supply of certified copy and certified copy was supplied on 1-8-2014
and according to the record, the application under Section 18 of Land
Acquisition Act was filed before the LAO on 23-8-2014 and as per
endorsement made on the application, the Collector directed for taking
action on 22-12-2014.
17. Now the only question for consideration is that whether
application was filed within a period of six months from the date of
the Collector‟s award or not?
18. The moot question for consideration is that whether narrow
interpretation is 4 to be given to the words “from the date of the
Collector‟s award or the date of knowledge of award would also mean
from the date of the Collector‟s award?
19. The Supreme Court in the case of Bhagwan Das v. State of
U.P., reported in (2010) 3 SCC 545 has held as under :
25. Invariably, the land-loser is required to make an application
under Section 18 of the Act to get the market value as
compensation. The land-loser does not get a right to seek
reference to the civil court unless the award is made. This means
that he can make an application seeking reference only when he
knows that an award has been made.
26. If the words six months from the “date of the Collector‟s
award” should be literally interpreted as referring to the date of
the award and not the date of knowledge of the award, it will lead
to unjust and absurd results. For example, the Collector may
choose to make an award but not to issue any notice under
Section 12(2) of the Act, either due to negligence or oversight or
due to any ulterior reasons. Or he may send a notice but may not
bother to ensure that it is served on the landowner as requiredSignature Not Verified
Signed by: ANAND
SHRIVASTAVA
Signing time: 6/30/2025
11:05:27 AM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:1284011 F.A. No. 557 of 2021
under Section 45 of the Act. If the words “date of the Collector‟s
award” are literally interpreted, the effect would be that on the
expiry of six months from the date of award, even though the
claimant had no notice of the award, he would lose the right to
seek a reference. That will lead to arbitrary and unreasonable
discrimination between those who are notified of the award and
those who are not notified of the award.
27. Unless the procedure under the Act is fair, reasonable and
non-discriminatory, it will run the risk of being branded as being
violative of Article 14 as also Article 300-A of the Constitution
of India. To avoid such consequences, the words “date of the
Collector‟s award” occurring in proviso (b) to Section 18
requires to be read as referring to the date of knowledge of the
essential contents of the award, and not the actual date of the
Collector‟s award.
28. The following position therefore emerges from the
interpretation of the proviso to Section 18 of the Act:
(i) If the award is made in the presence of the person interested
(or his authorised representative), he has to make the application
within six weeks from the date of the Collector‟s award itself.
(ii) If the award is not made in the presence of the person
interested (or his authorised representative), he has to make the
application seeking reference within six weeks of the receipt of
the notice from the Collector under Section 12(2).
(iii) If the person interested (or his representative) was not
present when the award is made, and if he does not receive the
notice under Section 12(2) from the Collector, he has to make the
application within six months of the date on which he actually or
constructively came to know about the contents of the award.
(iv) If a person interested receives a notice under Section 12(2) of
the Act, after the expiry of six weeks from the date of receipt of
such notice, he cannot claim the benefit of the provision for six
months for making the application on the ground that the date of
receipt of notice under Section 12(2) of the Act was the date of
knowledge of the contents of the award.
29. A person who fails to make an application for reference
within the time prescribed is not without remedy. It is open to
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ANAND
SHRIVASTAVA
Signing time: 6/30/2025
11:05:27 AM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:12840
12 F.A. No. 557 of 2021
him to make an application under Section 28-A of the Act, on the
basis of an award of the court in respect of the other lands
covered by the same acquisition notification, if there is an
increase. Be that as it may.
30. When a person interested makes an application for reference
seeking the benefit of six months‟ period from the date of
knowledge, the initial onus is on him to prove that he (or his
representative) was not present when the award was made, that
he did not receive any notice under Section 12(2) of the Act, and
that he did not have the knowledge of the contents of the award
during a period of six months prior to the filing the application
for reference. This onus is discharged by asserting these facts on
oath. He is not expected to prove the negative. Once the initial
onus is discharged by the claimant/person interested, it is for the
Land Acquisition Collector to establish that the person interested
was present either in person or through his representative when
the award was made, or that he had received a notice under
Section 12(2) of the Act, or that he had knowledge of the
contents of the award.
31. Actual or constructive knowledge of the contents of the
award can be established by the Collector by proving that the
person interested had received or drawn the compensation
amount for the acquired land, or had attested the
mahazar/panchnama/proceedings delivering possession of the
acquired land in pursuance of the acquisition, or had filed a case
challenging the award or had acknowledged the making of the
award in any document or in statement on oath or evidence. The
person interested, not being in possession of the acquired land
and the name of the State or its transferee being entered in the
revenue municipal records coupled with delay, can also lead to
an inference of constructive knowledge. In the absence of any
such evidence by the Collector, the claim of the person interested
that he did not have knowledge earlier will be accepted, unless
there are compelling circumstances not to do so.
20. Thus the words from the date of the Collector‟s award would
also include from the date of knowledge.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ANAND
SHRIVASTAVA
Signing time: 6/30/2025
11:05:27 AM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:12840
13 F.A. No. 557 of 2021
21. In the present case, it was specifically pleaded by the
respondent, that after getting information of award, an application was
filed on 14-7-2014 for supply of certified copy which was received on
1-4-2014 and as per the record, the application under Section 18 of
Land Acquisition Act was filed before LAO on 23-8-2014 and on 22-
12-2014, an endorsement was made by Collector to take necessary
action. Thus, it is held that the application under Section 18 of Land
Acquisition was filed within six months from the date of knowledge
of impugned award, therefore, the reference is held to be within the
period of limitation.
Whether the respondent had accepted the compensation amount
without protest?
22. It is submitted by Counsel for appellant, that since, the
respondent had received the compensation amount, therefore, the
reference under Section 18 of Land Acquisition Act was not
maintainable.
23. Considered the submissions made by Counsel for the
appellant.
24. The appellants in their written statement did not claim that the
respondent has accepted the compensation amount without any
protest. However, the respondent in para 10 of his cross-examination
had admitted that the compensation amount was received under
protest. AwadheshPratap Singh Yadav, who appeared as a
departmental witness did not claim that the compensation amount was
paid. Thus, it is clear that the respondent himself has admitted that
compensation amount was received under protest. Therefore, now the
next question for consideration is that if the land owner has accepted
the compensation amount under protest, then whether a reference can
be made under Section 18 of Land Acquisition Act or not?
25. Section 31 of Land Acquisition Act reads as under :
31. Payment of compensation or deposit of same in Court.–(1) On
making an award under Section 11, the Collector 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 unless
prevented by some one or more of the contingencies mentioned in the
next sub-section.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ANAND
SHRIVASTAVA
Signing time: 6/30/2025
11:05:27 AM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:12840
14 F.A. No. 557 of 2021
(2) If they shall not consent to receive it, or if there be no person
competent to alienate the land, or if there be any dispute as to the title
to receive the compensation or as to the apportionment of it, the
Collector shall deposit the amount of the compensation in the court to
which a reference under Section 18 would be submitted:
Provided that any person admitted to be interested may receive such
payment under protest as to the sufficiency of the amount:
Provided also that no person who has received the amount otherwise
than under protest shall be entitled to make any application under
Section 18:
Provided also that nothing herein contained shall affect the liability of
any person, who may receive the whole or any part of any
compensation awarded under this Act, to pay the same to the person
lawfully entitled thereto.
(3) Notwithstanding anything in this section, the Collector may, with
the sanction of 1[appropriate Government], instead of awarding a
money compensation in respect of any land, make any arrangement
with a person having a limited interest in such land, either by the grant
of other lands in exchange, the remission of land-revenue on other
lands held under the same title, or in such other way as may be
equitable having regard to the interests of the parties concerned.
(4) Nothing in the last foregoing sub-section shall be construed to
interfere with or limit the power of the Collector to enter into any
arrangement with any person interested in the land and competent to
contract in respect thereof.
26. Section 31(2) second proviso provides that no person who has
received the amount other than under protest shall be entitled to make
any application under Section 18. As already pointed out, the
respondent, in para 10 of his cross-examination, that the amount of
compensation was received by him under protest. The appellant has
not controverted the said fact by producing documents.
AwadheshPratap Singh Yadav who had appeared as a Departmental
Witness neither refuted the said evidence of the respondent, nor filed
any document to show that compensation amount was received by
respondent without any protest.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ANAND
SHRIVASTAVA
Signing time: 6/30/2025
11:05:27 AM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:12840
15 F.A. No. 557 of 2021
27. The Supreme Court in the case of Chandra Bhan v.
Ghaziabad Development Authority, reported in (2015) 15 SCC 343
has held as under :
11. The principal contention urged by the learned counsel for
GDA was that since the compensation was accepted by the
claimants without any protest, the reference was not
maintainable. In our opinion, this contention is without any
substance for several reasons. In Ajit Singh v. State of Punjab it
was held that since the appellants therein had filed an application
for reference under Section 18 of the Act, it manifested their
intention. Consequently, the protest against the award of the
Collector was implied notwithstanding the acceptance of
compensation.
12. Similarly, in U.P. State Industrial Development Corpn.v.
RishabhIspat Ltd. it was held that (SCC p. 252, para 8) the
question whether the compensation offered was accepted without
protest is essentially a question of fact to be determined on the
basis of the evidence on record. On facts, it was held in that
decision that there was nothing to suggest that the claimants had
accepted the compensation without protest.
13. Insofar as the present appeals are concerned, although the
State/GDA did aver in its written statement that Chandra Bhan
had accepted the compensation without any protest, no issue was
framed in this regard, and, therefore, there was no question of
any evidence having been led to show that the claim was
accepted without any protest. That apart, SLAO gave his award
on 7-12-1990 and Chandra Bhan had filed his objections to the
award and sought a reference within the prescribed time by
making an application under Section 18 of the Act on 11-1-1991.
His conduct clearly shows that the award passed by SLAO was
not accepted without protest.
14. Additionally, we are of the opinion that in cases where a
large number of claimants are involved, there will always be a
few claimants who may accept the award passed by the
Collector. If they are precluded from making a reference for
enhancement of compensation, it could lead to an anomalous
situation where out of very large number of landowners, some of
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ANAND
SHRIVASTAVA
Signing time: 6/30/2025
11:05:27 AM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:12840
16 F.A. No. 557 of 2021
them, located in scattered pockets would be entitled to the
compensation only as awarded by the Collector while some of
them in other scattered pockets would be entitled to claim
enhancement of compensation. There would, therefore, be two
distinct class of landowners similarly located and placed but
receiving different amounts of compensation for the acquisition
of the same land. Surely, this cannot be the intention of Section
18 of the Act.
15. In the impugned judgment and order the High Court has laid
emphasis on the fact that since the claimants had accepted the
compensation awarded by SLAO without protest, the reference
under Section 18 of the Act was not maintainable. As we have
found on facts, this is incorrect and the judgment and order
passed by the High Court is, to this extent, unsustainable.
16. The learned counsel for the State/GDA relied upon Ashwani
Kumar Dhingra v. State of Punjab to contend that only a person
who has accepted the compensation under protest is entitled to
ask for a reference. The decision relied upon does not advance
the case of the learned counsel. That was a case decided on its
own facts pertaining to an individual in which one member of the
family was satisfied with the compensation awarded to him in
respect of his parcel of land and other members of the family
were not and had accepted the compensation under protest. The
appellant in the cited case sought to take advantage of the protest
by other members of his family. This Court, in that context,
referred to Section 18 of the Act and held that a person
interested, in order to enable him to seek the remedy of reference
can do so if he does not accept the award made by the Collector.
That was also a case in which only an individual was affected
and not a large number of landowners.
17. The learned counsel also submitted that the protest letter of
Chandra Bhan that has been filed in this Court as a part of the
paper book does not contain any date, thereby implying that the
protest letter was not genuine. We cannot entertain this
submission since it involves a decision on a fact that was not
considered either by the Reference Court or by the High Court.
However, we may only observe that in the written statement filed
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ANAND
SHRIVASTAVA
Signing time: 6/30/2025
11:05:27 AM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:12840
17 F.A. No. 557 of 2021
by the State/GDA it has not been stated anywhere when the
compensation was accepted by Chandra Bhan (without protest)
and the quantum thereof. On the contrary, a rather general
averment has been made to the following effect:
“That the claimant(s) has/have accepted the award and has/have
received the amount of compensation without protest as such the
reference is legally not maintainable and is liable to be
dismissed.”
18. In the absence of any definitive facts having been pleaded by
the State/GDA, it is difficult to come to the conclusion that
Chandra Bhan and the other claimants had accepted the
compensation without protest.
28. Since, the evidence of respondent has remained unrebutted
that he had received the compensation amount under protest,
therefore, this Court is of considered opinion, that the reference was
maintainable.
29. No other argument was advanced by Counsel for the State.
30. Accordingly, it is held that no illegality was committed by the
reference court by holding that not only the reference was
maintainable, but it was not barred by time.
31. It was informed by the Counsel for the parties, that the Land
Owners have also challenged the award on the question of quantum of
compensation.
32. Therefore, by keeping the question of quantum of
compensation open, the award dated 13.07.2020 passed by Additional
Judge to the Court of First Additional District Judge, Gohad, District
Bhind in Land Acquisition MJC Case No. 16 of 2015 is hereby
affirmed. The appeal filed by the State/Appellants is hereby
Dismissed.
33. Office is directed to keep the record of the Reference
Court in the Appeal filed by land owner.
34. No order as to costs.”
5. Therefore, by keeping the question of quantum of compensation open, the
award dated 27/1/2021 passed by First Additional District Judge, Gohad, District
Bhind in Land Acquisition MJC Case No. 22 of 2015 is hereby affirmed. The
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ANAND
SHRIVASTAVA
Signing time: 6/30/2025
11:05:27 AM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:12840
18 F.A. No. 557 of 2021
appeal filed by the State/Appellants is hereby Dismissed, in the terms and
conditions of Judgment passed in the case of Lokendra Singh (Supra).
6. Office is directed to keep the record of the Reference Court in the
Appeal filed by land owner.
7. No order as to costs.
(G.S. Ahluwalia)
Judge
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ANAND
SHRIVASTAVA
Signing time: 6/30/2025
11:05:27 AM