Ranveer Singh vs State Of U.P. Thru' Secy. & Others
2014 Latest Caselaw 1937 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

								AFR	
 
								Reserved on 24/3/2014
 
							     Delivered on  22/5/2014
 
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 60992 of 2005
 
Petitioner :- Ranveer Singh
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru' Secy. & Others
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Amit Saxena
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,C.B.Yadav,R.P.Singh,Ravindra Kumar
 

 
Hon'ble Ashok Bhushan,J.

Hon'ble Mahesh Chandra Tripathi ,J.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Ashok Bhushan,J)

We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri Suresh Singh, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel appearing for the State and Shri R.P. Singh for the respondent no.4.

Counter and rejoinder affidavit have been exchanged between the parties, and with the consent of the parties, the writ petition is being finally decided.

Brief facts which emerge from the pleadings of the parties are: Petitioner's land being Plot Nos.203 area 30 bigha 12 Biswa and 209 area 1 Biswa situate in Village Parthala, Khanjarpur District Gautam Budh Nagar was acquired by issuing notification under Section 4 read with Section 17 dated 01/6/2000 and declaration under Section 6 dated 30/12/2000 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter called the "Act, 1894"). The possession of the land was taken by the State on 15/2/2001. After taking possession of the land, proceedings for payment of compensation to the tenure holders on the basis of agreement started. The DGC (Civil), sent an opinion on 06/2/2001, to the Additional District Magistrate Land Acquisition, Noida, Gautam Budh Nagar informing that the petitioner has land excess to the ceiling limit, hence the compensation of the excess land is to be deposited in the State account. He also prayed that a reference under Section 30 of the Act, 1894 be made. The Additional District Magistrate, (Land Acquisition) on 22/3/2001, wrote to the Sub Divisional Magistrate referring to the objections of the D.G.C. Civil enquiring as to whether any proceedings under the U.P. Imposition of Ceiling Act, 1960 is pending in the Court. A report dated 23/6/2001 was submitted by the Naib Tehsildar that ceiling proceedings were initiated against Dharamvir son of Lajja Ram, but the notice was cancelled. The Naib Tehsildar wrote to the D.G.C. Civil on 03/12/2001, asking for his opinion. The Additional District Magistrate (Land Acquisition) on 20/11/2002, wrote to the DGC (Civil) as to whether still ceiling proceedings can be initiated or not. Ultimately, on 07/2/2003 Incharge Ceiling wrote to the Additional District Magistrate that (Ranvir Singh) has five sons, hence no land is excess in ceiling. After the aforesaid report was received, an agreement was entered with the petitioner and the Additional District Magistrate, (Land Acquisition Gautam Budh Nagar) for payment of compensation as per the Uttar Pradesh Land Acquisition (Determination of Compensation and Declaration of Award by Agreement) Rules, 1997 (hereinafter called the "Rules, 1997"). On 27/2/2003, a compensation of Rs. 1,37,58,350/- was prepared and paid to the petitioner. The petitioner before the said payment has filed Writ Petition No.38951/2002 in this Court claiming payment of compensation. An amendment was also prayed in the writ petition praying for payment of interest from 15/2/2001 to 26/2/2003. The said writ petition was disposed of by this Court vide order dated 12/4/2005, permitting the petitioner to file a representation before the District Magistrate, Gautam Budh Nagar who was directed to decide the representation by a speaking order. The petitioner consequently filed a representation claiming payment of interest which was considered by the District Magistrate and rejected vide order dated 06/8/2005. The District Magistrate, took the view that the petitioner having entered into an agreement for receiving the amount at the rate of Rs. 329.76/- per square yard in pursuance of which agreement he received the entire amount of Rs. 1,37,58,349 without any objection, he is not entitled to claim any interest in addition to the aforesaid amount. The award under Section 11 of the Act, 1894 was also declared on 14/7/2008. The petitioner has filed this writ petition praying for following reliefs:

"(I) Issue a Writ, Order or Direction in the nature of Certiorari quashing the impugned judgment and order dated 06.08.2005 (Annexure No.6 to the writ petition) passed by the Collector, Gautam Budh Nagar.

(II) Issue a further Writ, Order or Direction in the nature of Mandamus commanding the respondents to pay interest on the amount of compensation illegally withheld from 15.02.2001 to 27.02.2003 at 18% compound and to pay interest at the same rate on the amount of interest from 27.02.2003 till the same is paid to the petitioner.

	    	(III)	Issue any other Writ, Order or Direction, which this Hon'ble 				Court may deem fit and proper in the nature and 					circumstances of the case. 
 
(IV)	Award cost of the petition."
 

 

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner did not possess any surplus land and he was entitled immediately for payment of compensation after possession of land was taken on 15/2/2001. He submits that even the DGC (Civil) has given his opinion that the petitioner does not possess any surplus ceiling land, but in respect of the aforesaid payment of compensation of agreement was unnecessarily delayed, hence the respondents are liable to pay interest to the petitioner for the period 15/2/2001 to 26/2/2003. He submits that the District Magistrate has wrongly rejected the representation of the petitioner.

Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents refuting the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner accepted the compensation as per the agreement entered by him on 27/2/2003, which disentitles him to claim any interest, solatium or to make any request for enhancement of compensation. He submits that the petitioner was free to take compensation as per the award prepared under Section 11 (1) of the Act, 1894 where he would have received the interest from the date of taking possession of the land. The petitioner having accepted the compensation as per the agreement under the Rules, 1997 he is debarred from claiming any other payment including interest.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the judgments of the Apex Courts in Hissar Improvement Trust Vs. Smt. Rukmani Devi & Anr, AIR 1990 S.C. 2033. Learned Standing Counsel has placed reliance on the judgments in State of Karnataka & Anr Vs.Sangappa Dyavappa Biradar & Ors, (2005) 4 SCC 264 and a Division Bench judgment of this Court in Kainash Ram Kochar Vs. State of U.P. & Ors, 2011 (8) ADJ 91.

Shri R.P. Singh learned counsel appearing for the respondent no.4 also supported the submission made by the learned counsel for the State. He submits that the petitioner having signed the agreement on 27/2/2003, he received the compensation as full and final payment, and he cannot claim any interest thereafter.

We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record.

Under the Act, 1894, the award is prepared under Section 11 which determines the compensation which is to be allowed for the land acquired. Sub-Section (2) of Section 11 of the Act, 1894 which begins with non-obstante clause provides that if at any stage of the proceedings, the Collector is satisfied that all the persons interested in the land who appeared before him have agreed in writing may make an award without making any further enquiry, he shall make an award.

Section 11 of the Act, 1894 is quoted below:

"11. Enquiry and award by Collector.-[(1)] On the day so fixed, or any other day to which the enquiry has been adjourned, the Collector shall proceed to enquire into the objections (if any) which any person interested has stated pursuant to a notice given under section 9 to the measurements made under section 8, and into the value of the land [at the date of the publication of the notification under section 4, sub-section (1)], and into the respective interests of the persons claiming the compensation and shall make an award under his hand of-

(i)the true area of the land;

(ii)the compensation which in his opinion should be allowed for the land; and

(iii)the apportionment of the said compensation among all the persons known or believed to be interested in the land, of whom, or of whose claims, he has information, whether or not they have respectively appeared before him:

[Provided that no award shall be made by the Collector under this sub-section without the previous approval of the appropriate Government or of such officer as the appropriate Government may authorise in this behalf:

Provided further that it shall be competent for the appropriate Government to direct that the Collector may make such award without such approval in such class of cases as the appropriate Government may specify in this behalf.]

[(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), if at any stage of the proceedings, the Collector is satisfied that all the persons interested in the land who appeared before him have agreed in writing on the matters to be included in the award of the Collector in the form prescribed by rules made by the appropriate Government, he may, without making further enquiry, make an award according to the terms of such agreement.]

[(3) The determination of compensation for any land under sub-section (2) shall not in any way affect the determination of compensation in respect of other lands in the same locality or elsewhere in accordance with the other provisions of this Act.]

[(4) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Registration Act, 1908 (16 of 1908), no agreement made under sub-section (2) shall be liable to registration under that Act.]"

The State Government has framed the rules under Section 11 (2) of the Act, 1894 namely: Uttar Pradesh Land Acquisition (Determination of Compensation and Declaration of Award by Agreement) Rules, 1997. The form of agreement is also part of the statutory rules. One of the conditions which is contained in the Rules, 1997 i.e. Condition No.3 provides as follows:

"3.that the owner/owners and interested party/parties shall not claim any amount in addition to the amount agreed upon as aforesaid as compensation and accept is without any protest;"

There is no dispute between the parties that the payment of compensation was made to the petitioner in accordance with the Rules, 1997. Copy of the agreement entered between the petitioner with the State has been brought on the record by the State in its counter affidavit. The said agreement has been entered as per Rule 4 sub-rule (2) of the Rules, 1997. Condition No. 3 as noted above is very much present in the agreement which was entered between the parties. The amount of compensation i.e. Rs.13758349/- has been paid to the petitioner which was the total amount agreed to be paid. Whether a person receiving compensation under the agreement is entitled to claim interest in addition to the amount paid to the petitioner under the agreement is the question to be answered.

The payment of compensation as per the agreement between the parties is a mode of payment which is statutory recognised under Section 11 (2) of the Act, 1897. When an award is made under Section 11 (1) of the Act, 1894, the determination of compensation is to be made as per Section 23 of the Act, 1894. Section 34 of the Act, 1894 provides for payment of interest. It is useful to quote Section 34 which is to the following effect:

"34.Payment of interest.-When the amount of such compensation is not paid or deposited on or before taking possession of the land, the Collector shall pay the amount awarded with interest thereon at the rate of [nine per centum] per annum from the time of so taking possession until it shall have been so paid or deposited:

[Provided that if such compensation or any part thereof is not paid or deposited within a period of one year from the date on which possession is taken, interest at the rate of fifteen per centum per annum shall be payable from the date of expiry of the said period of one year on the amount of compensation or part thereof which has not been paid or deposited before the date of such expiry.]"

From the scheme as delineated by Part V of the Act, 1894 i.e. Sections 31 to Section 34, it is clear that the payment of compensation dealt with in Part V is the payment of compensation as per the award made under Section 11 (1) of the Act, 1894. Section 31 of the Act, 1894 further mentions that no person who has received the amount otherwise than under protest shall be entitled to make any application under Section 18 of the Act, 1894.

It is well settled that a person who has received the compensation under consent is not entitled to make an reference under Section 18 of the Act, 1894.

The Apex Court in the case of State of Gujrat & Ors Vs. Daya Shamji Bhai & Ors, (1995) 5 SCC 746, had occasion to consider the provisions of Section 11 (2) and Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. In the said case the land owner had given consent in writing to accept the compensation. Land owners were paid compensation in terms of the consent. Subsequently, land owners sought reference under Section 18 of the Act, 1894 in which reference the compensation was enhanced. The State Government filed an appeal before the High Court which was dismissed.

The State Government filed an appeal in which the Apex Court laid down following in paragraphs 6,7,8 and 9.

"6. In view of the above agreement and in view of the discussion made by the Land Acquisition Officer in the award and working details given in the annexures made therein, it is clear that the parties having contracted to receive compensation the question emerges whether they are entitled to seek a reference. On making an award under Section 11 and issuance of the notice under Section 12 of the Act, the Collector is enjoined under Section 31 (1) to tender payment of the compensation awarded by him to the interested persons entitled thereto to receive the compensation according to the terms of the award. Under the second proviso to sub-section (2) of Section 31 "no person who has received the amount otherwise than under protest shall be entitled to make any application under Section 18". The entitlement to make reference to civil court under Section 18(1) and within the period prescribed under sub-section (2) is conditioned upon non-acceptance of the award. Sub-section (1) of Section 18 makes the matter clear thus:

"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 regarding his objection, be it 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."

The right and entitlement to seek reference would, therefore, arise when the amount of compensation was received under protest in writing which would manifest the intention of the owner of non-acceptance of the award. Section 11 (2) opens with a non obstante clause "notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1)" and provides that "if at any stage of the proceedings, the Collector is satisfied that all the persons interested in the land who appeared before him have agreed in writing on the matters to be included in the award of the Collector in the form prescribed by rules made by the appropriate Government, he may, without making further enquiry, make an award according to the terms of such agreement. By virtue of sub-section (4), "notwithstanding anything contained in the Registration Act, 1908, no agreement made under sub-section (2) shall be liable to registration under that Act". The award made under Section 11 (2) in terms of the agreement is, therefore, an award with consent obviating the necessity of reference under Section 18.

7. The Reference Court negatived the contention of the State and its reliance on agreement of the parties on the ground that since the said agreements were not registered under Registration Act, they cannot contract out from statute. Therefore the Reference Court has the power to award higher compensation. It is seen that in the contract they had agreed to receive compensation and 25 per cent more in addition thereto. They had also agreed not to seek any reference under Section 18. In the light of the above, no option is left to the parties under Section 18 to seek reference. Sub-section (2) of Section 11 gives right to the parties to enter into an agreement to receive award/compensation awarded under Section 11 in terms of the contract. In fact, it would be more expeditious to have the dispute sorted out so as to avoid delay in determination of proper compensation. The contract between the owners and the Collector in writing of the terms to be included in the award of the Collector is conclusive and binds the parties. They would not be entitled to seek any reference for enhancement of the compensation required to be adjudicated under Section 23 (1) of the Act. It would be seen that when compensation was received under protest, Section 18 gets attracted.

8. The question of awarding interest and statutory benefits arises when the civil court finds that the amount of compensation awarded to the landowners by the Collector is not adequate and the prevailing market value is higher than the market value determined by the Land Acquisition Officer under Section 23 (1). For entitlement to solatium under Section 23 (2) "in addition to" market value the court shall award solatium. Under Section 28, if the court gets power to award interest, when court opines that the Collector "ought to have awarded compensation in excess of the sum which the Collector did award (sic) the compensation". In other words, valid reference under Section 18 confers jurisdiction on the civil court to consider whether the compensation awarded by the Collector is just and fair. Thereafter, when it finds that the Collector ought to have awarded higher compensation, the civil court gets jurisdiction to award statutory benefits on higher compensation from the date of taking possession only. In view of the specific contract made by the respondents in terms of Section 11 (2), they are not entitled to seek a reference. Consequently, the civil court is devoid of jurisdiction to go into the adequacy of compensation awarded by the Collector or prevailing market value as on the date of notification under Section 4(1) to determine the compensation under Section 23 (1) and to grant statutory benefits.

9. By operation of Section 11 (4), the need for registration of the agreement is obviated. As seen in the contract, the respondents have foregone their right of seeking reference in lieu of 25 per cent more than the compensation determined by the Collector under Section 11 (2) of the Act. In fact, 25 per cent in addition to the market value determined by the Collector in his award under Section 11 (1) had been paid as the consideration to forego reference. Even otherwise, once an agreement was entered by the parties, the question of objection to receive compensation under protest does not arise. So, they have no right to seek a reference to the civil court under Section 18 of the Act."

The above judgment fully supports the contention raised by the learned counsel appearing for the State respondents.

In State of Karnataka & Anr (supra), the parties entered into negotiation and consent award was passed by the Special Land Acquisition Officer. The land owner filed an application for reference under Section 18 of the Act, 1894 which was rejected by the Collector. Writ petition was filed in the High Court which was dismissed by the learned Single Judge. However, the appeal was allowed by the High Court. The State Government took the matter to the Apex Court. The Apex Court laid down following in paragraphs 13,14,15,16,17 and 18.

"13. An award under the Act is passed either on consent of the parties or on adjudication of rival claims. For the purpose of passing a consent award, it was not necessary to comply with the provisions of Article 299 of the Constitution of India. An agreement between the parties need not furthermore be strictly in terms of a prescribed format.

14. The Respondents having accepted the award without any demur were estopped and precluded from maintaining an application for reference in terms of Section 18 of the Act. It is also trite that by reason of such agreement, the right to receive amount by way of solatium or interest etc. can be waived.

15. In Daya Shamji Bhai (supra), this Court held :

"The right and entitlement to seek reference would, therefore, arise when amount of compensation was received under protest in writing which would manifest the intention of the owner of non-acceptance of the award. Section 11(2) opens with a non-obstante clause 'notwithstanding anything contained in Sub-section (1)' and provides that 'if at any stage of the proceedings, the Collector is satisfied that all the persons interested in the land who appeared before him have agreed in writing on the matters to be included in the award of the Collector in the form prescribed by rules made by the appropriate Government, he may, without making further enquiry, make an award according to the terms of such agreement.' By virtue of Sub-section (4), 'notwithstanding anything contained in the Registration Act, 1908, no agreement made under sub-section (2) shall be liable to registration under that Act'. The award made under Section 11(2) in terms of the agreement is, therefore, an award with consent obviating the necessity of reference under Section 18."

16.In Ishwarlal Premchand Shah (supra), it was held :

"8. It is true that on determination of compensation under Sub-section (1) for the land acquired, Section 23(2) enjoins to award, in addition to the market value, 30% solatium in consideration of compulsory nature of acquisition. Equally, Parliament having taken notice of the inordinate delay in making the award by the Land Acquisition Officer, from the date of notification published under Section 4(1) till passing the award under Section 11, to offset the price pegged during the interregnum, Section 23(1-A) was introduced to award an amount calculated @ 12% per annum on such market value, in addition to the market value of the land, for the period commencing on and from the date of the publication of Section 4(1) notification to the date of award of the Collector or date of taking possession of the land whichever is earlier. Under Section 28, interest was directed to be paid on the excess compensation at the rate specified therein from the date of taking possession of the land to the date of deposit into court of such excess compensation. These three components are in addition to the compensation determined under Sub-section (1) of Section 23. They intended to operate in different perspectives. One for compulsory acquisition, the other for the delay on the part of the Land Acquisition Officer in making the award and the third one for deprivation of the enjoyment of the land from the date of taking possession till determination of the compensation. The three components are in addition to the determination of market value under Sub-section (1) of Section 23. They are not integral to determination of compensation under Sub-section (1) of Section 23 but in addition to, for the circumstances enumerated hereinbefore. In a private sale between a willing vendor and a willing vendee, parties would, arrive at consensus to pay and receive consolidated consideration which would form the market value of the land conveyed to the vendee. For public purpose, compulsory acquisition under the Act gives absolute title under Section 16 free from all encumbrances. Determination of the compensation would be done under Section 23(1) on the basis of market value prevailing as on the date of the publication of the notification under Section 4(1). It would, therefore, be open to the parties to enter into a contract under Section 11(2), without the necessity to determine compensation under Section 23(1) and would receive market value at the rates incorporated in the contract signed under Section 11(2) in which event the award need not be in Form 14.

9. This Court in State of Gujarat v. Daya Shamji Bhai had considered the similar contentions and held, that once the parties have agreed under Section 11(2) of the Act, the Land Acquisition Officer has power under Section 11(2) to pass the award in terms thereof and that the award need not contain payment of interest, solatium and additional amount unless it is also part of the contract between the parties. The same ratio applies to the facts in this case. In view of the above clauses in the agreements the appellants are not entitled to the payment of additional amounts by way of solatium, interest and additional amount under the provisions of the Act."

17. Assam Railways & Trading Co. Ltd. (supra) whereupon Ms. Suri placed reliance is not applicable to the fact of the present case. Therein negotiations had taken place between the parties whereupon the Railway Administration became prepared to pay Rs. 2500 per bigha towards the sale price of the land but the transaction was not completed, having regard to the fact that under the State Railway Rules, land from private parties could be acquired only by taking recourse to acquisition proceedings. Thereafter, in the land acquisition proceedings, an award was made by the Land Acquisition Collector allowing compensation at the rate of Rs. 1000/- per bigha. It is in that situation, the negotiation between the parties was highlighted stating that although the same did not fructify into a binding contract, there was at least a "gentleman's agreement" regarding the price which indicated what a willing purchaser was ready to pay for the land. In the factual backdrop of that case this Court observed :

"Assuming this was an agreement which bound the parties, the Collector had still the jurisdiction to determine the market value of the land."

18. Keeping in view the fact that the condition precedent for maintaining application for reference under Section 18 is non-acceptance of the award by the awardee, in our considered opinion, the Division Bench acted illegally and without jurisdiction in passing the impugned judgment. The learned Single Judge was right in concluding that the writ petitions were not maintainable."

The judgment of the Apex Court in Hissar Improvement Trust (supra) was a case where the Apex Court held that interest is due and payable to the land owner in the event of the compensation not being paid or deposited in time in Court referring to Sections 31 and 34 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. In the said case, the amount payable was deposited by the appellant with the Collector for payment of compensation. In the said context, the Apex Court laid down following in paragraphs 5,6 and 7.

"5. It cannot be gainsaid that interest is due and payable to the landowner in the event of the compensation not being paid or deposited in time in Court. Before taking possession of the land, the Collector has to pay or deposit the amount awarded, as stated in Section 31, failing which he is liable to pay interest as provided in Section 34.

6. In the circumstances, the High Court was right in stating that interest was due and payable to the landowner. The High Court was justified in directing the necessary parties to appear in the Executing Court for determination of the amount.

7. We make it clear that insofar as the landowner is concerned, his right to be compensated is enforceable against the State. It is the liability of the Collector in terms of the relevant provisions to pay the amount awarded, together with interest in the event of the amount not being paid in time. The liability of the appellant-Trust arising under its agreement with the Government for payment in respect of the property acquired is a matter on which we express no view."

There cannot be any dispute to the proposition as laid down by the Apex Court in the said case, but the said proposition was laid down in context of an award which was made under Section 11 (1) and the amount was deposited in the Court. The said proposition cannot be applied to consent award under Section 11 (2) of the Act, 1894.

The Division Bench of this Court in Kainash Ram Kochar (supra) in which one of us (Ashok Bhushan,J) was also a member had occasion to consider the Rules, 1997 where the land holders accepted the compensation under an agreement. An application was made under Section 18 of the Act, 1894 which was rejected, against which the land holders had come to the Court. The Division Bench repelled the submission of the learned counsel for the land holders that they are entitled to make a reference under Section 18 of the Act, 1894. The Division Bench laid down following in paragraphs 13,14,15,16,17 and 24.

"13.Sub-section (1) of Section 18 begins with a condition of reference i.e. "Any person interested who has not accepted the award may, by written application to the Collector," thus application for reference can be made by person interested only on the condition when "he has not accepted the award". The person who has accepted the compensation under an agreement under section 11(2) read with 1997 Rules cannot be said to be a person who has not accepted the award.

14. Even in a case, where award is made under section 11 and a person accepting the compensation without protest is also debarred from making an application under section 18, which is clearly spelled out from specific provisions of Section 31(2), second proviso. Section 31(1) (2) is quoted below:

"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.

(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."

15. The statute when expressly debars a person who has received the amount of compensation without any protest in pursuance of an award made under section 11, there is no reason for not debarring a person from making an application under section 18 who has accepted the compensation under section 11(2) under an agreement.

16. The above view of ours' is also fully supported by various decisions of this Court as well as of the apex Court. The first case which needs consideration is the apex Court's judgment in Ajit Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab and others (1994) 4 Supreme Court Cases 67. In the said case award was made under section 11 and some persons accepted the award under protest and some accepted without protest. The apex Court made following observations in paragraph 5:

"....Inasmuch as the appellants have filed an application for reference under section 18 of the Act that will manifest their intention. Therefore, the protest against the award of the Collector is implied notwithstanding the acceptance of compensation. The District Judge and the High Court, therefore, fell into patent error in denying the enhanced compensation to the appellants."

17.The said case laid down that protest against the award of the Collector is implied when an application is made under section. The present is a case where compensation has been accepted under an agreement under section 11(2) of the Land Acquisition Act and the above observation of the apex Court are not attracted in the present case which is clearly distinguishable.

24. The submission of learned Counsel for the petitioner that since they have not received notice under section 12 they are entitled to file application under section 18 is also misconceived. Compensation having been received in pursuance of an agreement, there is no question of making an application under section 18."

In view of the foregoing discussions, we are of the view that a person accepting compensation under an agreement entered with the State as provided for under Section 11 (2) of the Act, 1894 read with Rule 1997 is debarred from claiming any further amount in addition to the above amount received under the agreement. The amount received under consent is an amount of full payment inclusive of all claims. The above fact is clearly discernible from the award which was dealt in the present case made on 14/7/2008 and which has been brought on record as Annexure CA-1 to the counter affidavit filed by the respondent no.4. A perusal of the award indicates that for those person who accepted compensation under agreement, the amount fixed was Rs.329.76/- per square yard, whereas the payment for compensation for award under Section 11 (1) of the Act was fixed at the rate of Rs. 50.57 per square yard with 30% solatium and 12% interest from the date of taking possession. Thus, the interest from the date of taking possession is payable to a land holder who takes the compensation as per the award made under Section 11 (1) of the Act, 1894. For a person who has received compensation as per the award made under Section 11 (2) of the Act, 1894 all amount i.e. solatium and interest are included in the said amount which is apparent from the figures fixed for consented award i.e. Rs. 329.76 per square yard and for award made under Section 11 (1) of the Act i.e. Rs.50.57 per sq.meter.

Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the petitioner had made an application on 27/2/2003 praying that he may be paid compensation reserving his right of interest. Copy of the said application has been filed as Annexure-4 to the writ petition. The petitioner in paragraph 9 of the writ petition where reference of the said application has been made has not stated that how the application was sent and who had received the application. The averments made in the counter affidavit of the State categorically states that the petitioner accepted the consent award without any protest. The concept of accepting the compensation under a consent award by an agreement runs contrary to receiving the compensation under protest.

We thus, do not find any substance in the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner submitted an application to receive the compensation on 27/2/2003 under protest.

In view of the foregoing discussions, we are of the considered view that the petitioner is not entitled for payment of any interest for the period 15/2/2001 to 27/2/2003. The petitioner is not entitled for any relief in this writ petition.

The writ petition is dismissed.

Order Date :- 22.5.2014

SB