1986 PLP 252 (MLD)

"If paid today i.e. today or tomorrow and informed, subject to appeal and reference."

3. On plain reading of this note, it appears that this statement in Sindhi was made by the appellant keeping all his options open for a claim of adequate compensation from the authorities concerned in appeal and revision.

4. It is admitted position in the case that no payment was made to the appellant "either today or tomorrow" and the matter hanged on till 10th December, 1977 when a cheque in the sum of Rs.42,350 dated 10th December, 1977 was handed over to the appellant and a receipt was obtained from him. The receipt is as follows:‑‑ "Received a Cheque bearing No.E/25 846403, dated 10‑12‑1977 amounting to Rs.42,350 towards the compensation of land measuring 6.2 Acres in Deh 50‑Dad belonging to me, in possession of Airport Authorities for extension of Aerodrome, Nawabshah. Rev. Stamp, 0‑80. paisa." After this typed text of the receipt the hand written note in ink appears which is as follows:‑‑ "Received Rs.42,350 only (Forty‑two thousand and three hundred and fifty only), under protest. (Sd.) 10‑12‑77 (R.M. Abdullah) Advocate."

5. On 10‑12‑1977 the note on the" statement which has been reproduced in para. 2 above has been scored off. The colour of the ink shows that this was scored of simultaneously with execution of receipt. After scoring off the writing the Late Raza Muhammad Abdullah put down his signature as well as date which is 10‑12‑1977, it is possible that after executing the receipt and having endorsed the receipt with the words "under protest", he might have been pursuaded by the officer concerned to score off the note on the main statement. No other explanation is possible, because if the intention was to accept Rs.7,000 per Acre unqualified and unconditioned, this note should have been scored off there and then on the date when the statement was recorded and the original signature on the statement were put down. The original signatures on the statement are dated 12‑11‑1977. In view of the words "under protest" put down on the receipt of payment of 10‑12‑1977, the scoring off of the earlier note at the bottom of the statement dated 12‑11‑1977 loses much of its significance. In this view of the matter if the receipt is taken to be the basis of the agreement and settlement between the parties, the position would emerge that Late Raza Muhammad Abdullah accepted the compensation under protest reserving his right for agitating his grievance at a high leval which he actually did.

6. After the Arbitrator was appointed by the Government, the Arbitrator issued notices to all the persons whose lands were requisitioned by the Government. It is admitted position that a notice was duly issued and served on Late Raza Muhammad Abdullah and he filed his written arguments before the learned District Judge and Arbitrator, Nawabshah. In this statement the following paragraph is note worthy:‑‑

"The compensation taken under protest does not mean that my chapter of further claim of enhancement of compensation is closed. This has been stated in section 30 of Land Acquisition Act, which is connected and has relevancy with section 23 of Land Acquisition Act. At the time of forcible taking over the possession, I sustained loss of some items and material, which thing I have mentioned in my written reply. For these things I may also be compensated."

7. When the learned District Judge and Arbitrator heard the parties and disposed of the claims of all the land owners by a common order dated 25th February, 1982, the case of the appellant was also discussed as case No.3 in the order. In this order the learned Judge has not at, all examined the merits of the claim and the inadequacy of the compensation. which has been awarded to the appellant. The learned Judge has disposed of and dismissed the appellant is claim on the ground that he had agreed to accept compensation at the rate of Rs.7,000 per Acre for his land and as such it was not open to him to reagitate the matter before the learned Arbitrator. Thus, appellant's claim has not been examined at all, nor indeed the value of the land of the adjoining area which was simultaneously acquired and for which different formal of compensation has been adopted, has been taken into consideration.

8. To deprive a man of valuable rights in his property is very harsh indeed. An owner of land can be deprived of his property only if higher interests of State are involved because an individual must yield to the need of the society. At the same time the owner of the property must be adequately compensated. That has been the concept of acquisition since ages and has been honoured all over the world.

9. In this case at no stage of the proceedings starting from 20‑6‑1972 right to the date of the award i.e. 25‑2‑1982 there seems to be a willing, consenting, voluntary and free surrender of right by this individual. In the earlier opportunity when his statement was recorded on 12‑11‑1977, he conditioned his statement with a long note which 11 have reproduced above in para.

2. Subsequently when payment was made after about a month to him, he accepted the payment but appended the receipt with a note "under protest". What else was needed to show that he was willing .to surrender the land provided he was treated at par with others whose land was also being acquired in the same circumstances and in the same situation. I am informed by the learned counsel for the appellant that others have beer, paid @ Rs.14,000 per Acre.

10. Be that as it may, the fact remains that this individual never remained satisfied with the compensation he awarded. Whatever may be the reason for his scoring off the note after about a month, the fact that he accepted the payment under protest shows that there was no final, conclusive and voluntary settlement. At least the appellant never treated it to be such. There is another principle which I would follow in this case that ever if there is a doubt about the interpretation of statement dated 12‑11‑1977 and receipt dated 10‑12‑1977,which is now being called unqualified consent to accept compensation at the rate of Rs.7,G00 per Acre, this doubt should be resolved in favour of the subject and the case be examined on merits. The learned Arbitrator has not examined this aspect of the case and has brushed aside his claim on the assumption that the compensation @ Rs.7,000 per Acre was an agreed compensation. The interpretation seems to be far fetched. Let the claim of the appellant be examined to leave no misgivings in the mind of the appellant that he has been unjustly and unevenly treated. I, would, therefore, allow this appeal, remand the case to the learned District Judge/ Arbitrator, Nawabshah for hearing of the dispute after issuing notice to the parties concerned and for fixing compensation according to law. S.A Appeal accepted.