Skip to content


Mrs. S. Thomas Vs. Collector of Madras (Land Acquisition Officer) - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectProperty
CourtChennai High Court
Decided On
Reported in(1958)1MLJ27
AppellantMrs. S. Thomas
RespondentCollector of Madras (Land Acquisition Officer)
Excerpt:
- .....declined the request for the reason that the petitioner had accepted the award. that the amount awarded as compensation by the acquiring officer was received by the petitioner and without any protest is not in dispute. but what is contended for the petitioner is that it is not the collector who has to decide whether there has been acceptance of an award but the civil court on hearing the reference. it is stated that since the petitioner filed the application for the reference within the time limited by section 18, it must be taken that the petitioner had not accepted the award and that consequently the collector had no jurisdiction to refuse to refer.2. i do not agree. the acceptance of an award under section 18 and the consent referred to in section 31(2) connote the same idea and is.....
Judgment:
ORDER

Rajagopala Ayyangar, J.

1. The point that is raised in this petition is the legality and propriety of the order of the Collector refusing to refer a question of the quantum of compensation to the Court under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. The Collector declined the request for the reason that the petitioner had accepted the award. That the amount awarded as compensation by the acquiring officer was received by the petitioner and without any protest is not in dispute. But what is contended for the petitioner is that it is not the Collector who has to decide whether there has been acceptance of an award but the Civil Court on hearing the reference. It is stated that since the petitioner filed the application for the reference within the time limited by Section 18, it must be taken that the petitioner had not accepted the award and that consequently the Collector had no jurisdiction to refuse to refer.

2. I do not agree. The acceptance of an award under Section 18 and the consent referred to in Section 31(2) connote the same idea and is an inference drawn from the same fact. When Section 31 speaks of a receipt without protest as debarring the owner from making further claims, the same criterion must apply to the construction of Section 18, and when admittedly the owner--the petitioner here--received the compensation awarded without protest I must take it he accepted the award.

3. The order of the Collector was therefore not illegal and the petition fails and is dismissed.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //