Land acquisition reference rights preserved where protest conduct and award knowledge governed limitation and waiver

Articles 226 and 227 could be invoked against a Collector's refusal to make a reference, and the existence of a revision under Section 115 CPC did not bar supervisory interference. Limitation for a reference under the proviso to Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 runs from actual or constructive knowledge of the award, not from mere awareness of acquisition proceedings; on that basis, the applications were treated as in time. Waiver under the second proviso to Section 31(2) depends on the claimant's overall conduct, and a prior protest in the payment application was not nullified merely because the receipt did not repeat the protest. The claimant's right to seek reference was therefore preserved.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the petitions under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India were maintainable against the Collector's refusal to make a reference. (ii) Whether the applications for reference were barred by limitation under the proviso to Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. (iii) Whether the petitioners had waived their right to seek a reference under the second proviso to Section 31(2) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 by executing receipts that did not expressly recite protest.

Issue (i): Whether the petitions under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India were maintainable against the Collector's refusal to make a reference.

Analysis: The availability of a revision under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure did not exclude supervisory interference under Article 227. The challenge could be entertained in revision or under constitutional supervisory jurisdiction.

Conclusion: The objection to maintainability was rejected.

Issue (ii): Whether the applications for reference were barred by limitation under the proviso to Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.

Analysis: The period of six months runs from actual or constructive knowledge of the making of the award, not from mere knowledge of acquisition proceedings. Since no notice of the award had been served and the record did not show earlier knowledge of the award, the applications made after the petitioners came to know of the award were within time on the governing principle.

Conclusion: The reference applications were not barred by limitation.

Issue (iii): Whether the petitioners had waived their right to seek a reference under the second proviso to Section 31(2) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 by executing receipts that did not expressly recite protest.

Analysis: The proviso embodies the principle of waiver, and waiver depends on intention gathered from the entire conduct of the claimant. Where the claimant had already recorded protest in the applications seeking payment and reserved the right to enhanced compensation, the subsequent omission to repeat the protest in the receipts did not by itself amount to a waiver. A positive act showing abandonment of the protest was required.

Conclusion: The petitioners had not waived their right to seek a reference.

Final Conclusion: The Collector's refusal to make a reference was unsustainable, and the petitioners retained their right to have the compensation dispute referred and decided in accordance with law.

Ratio Decidendi: For purposes of Sections 18 and 31(2) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, protest and waiver must be judged from the claimant's overall conduct, and a prior recorded protest in the application for payment preserves the right to seek reference unless there is a subsequent clear act of abandonment; limitation under Section 18 begins from actual or constructive knowledge of the award.

---