Failure to File Section 18 Reference or Lodge Protest Bars Subsequent Claim for Enhanced Land Compensation

The petitioner, an occupier of Government land in Village Morogdola Non-K, Assam, possessed 162 rubber trees on land acquired by the State for a Broad Gauge Railway Line project under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (L.A. Case No. 10/2010).

Following a field verification in 2010, the Revenue Circle Officer listed the petitioner as eligible for Zirat (crop/tree) compensation.

In 2016, the petitioner received a notice to collect compensation and subsequently received Rs. 52,650/- (calculated at Rs. 325/- per tree based on Tripura Government rates).

The petitioner filed this writ petition seeking enhanced compensation, claiming a rate of Rs. 13,810/- per tree based on a 2016 Rubber Board certificate.

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to enhanced Zirat compensation after having accepted the awarded amount without protest.

2. Whether a writ petition for enhancement of compensation is maintainable when the statutory remedy under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act was not invoked within the limitation period.

The Court applied the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, specifically Section 11 (Collector’s award), Section 12 (finality of award), and Section 18 (reference to Court for compensation determination).

Under Section 18, an interested person who does not accept the award must file a written application for reference within six weeks of the notice.

The Court relied on State of Punjab v. Satinder Bir Singh [(1995) 3 SCC 330], establishing that the limitation for a reference application begins upon receipt of notice under Section 12(2).

It further cited Mahadeo Bajirao Patil v. State of Maharashtra [(2005) 7 SCC 440], which held that if compensation is received without protest, the determination becomes final, and the Court has no power to condone delays in making a Section 18 application.

The Court observed that the petitioner received the Zirat compensation of Rs. 52,650/- after submitting necessary documents to the Land Acquisition Officer in response to the 2016 notice.

Crucially, there was no evidence or "whisper" in the writ petition that the petitioner lodged a written protest or filed an application for reference under Section 18 within the prescribed six-week period.

The court noted that the Collector had adopted a reasoned rate based on the Government of Tripura's approved scales for rubber trees of 6–7 years of age.

Since the petitioner accepted the amount without protest, the award attained finality under Section 12. The Court reasoned that the petitioner cannot circumvent the statutory limitation period and the specific procedures of the Land Acquisition Act by filing a writ petition for a "change of stance" years later.

The petition was found to be bereft of merit and was dismissed with no order as to costs.