1. ' MUZAFFAR ALI J.-- The present respondents, (the owners) called in question the Award No, D.K- 1(1)/85 dated 13-5-1985 under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 (hereinafter referred to the Act). The Collector Land Acquisition (hereinafter called the Collector) referred the matter to the Referee Court. This is third time the matter reached before this court. On the second occasion this court framed an additional issue as under: "As to whether the respondents/petitioners had received the compensation amount under protest O.P.P."
2. ' The case was remanded to the Referee Court to decide the fate of the case after giving opportunity to both the parties to adduce evidence on the, additional issue, hence the impugned judgment before us whereby the learned Referee court has held the additional issue No,6 is proved by the present respondents and has granted the petition under section 18 of the Act in favour of the present respondents after de novo decision an all the issues.
3. ' We heard the learned A.A.-G. And the learned counsel for the respondents. The learned A.A.-G.
4. Mainly assailed the finding of the Referee Court on the additional issue and urged that the learned Referee Court has given his finding on the issue arbitrarily while record of the case reveals that no protest has been made by the present respondents at the time of receiving the compensation.
5. ' We perused the record of the case and also looked the statements of the witnesses adduced by the parties on the issue and found nothing to hold the finding on the issue by the learned referee Court to be arbitrary or against the record of the case for the reasons that (a) the present appellants have conceded that, the original record of the proceedings made by the Collector is missing as per statements of the witnesses relied by the present respondents, then how could be relied that no written protest is on the record (b) the petitioners have submitted the application u/s 18 of the Act well before receiving the compensation amount as such it can be said without any fear of being wrong that , the present respondents had not accepted the awarded amount and lodged their protest through objections under section 18 of the Act. We are agreed with the view taken by the then learned Judicial Commissioner Mr. Justice Sardar Mohammad Raza in this context, in the case titled "Collector Land Acquisition v. Taqi Joo and five others". The relevant portion of the judgment is reproduced as under:--- "The major legal objection of the learned Government pleader was that the respondents were not entitled to bring an objection petition under section 18 of Land Acquisition Act in the circumstances when they had received compensation from the Collector without protest. The objection is legal but it applies to a situation where the affectees receive compensation without protest prior to the institution of objection petition. Whereas, in the instant case, the situation is the other way round because the objection petition had preceded the receipt of the amount awarded and hence it operates as perfect protest prior to the receipt of compensation. The objection is baseless and was rightly repelled by the Court of reference.
6. ' We are also agreed on the point of enhancement of the compensation amount along with 15% compulsory charges and 8% compound interest till realization of the amount for the reasons that, the present respondents have very successfully proved the issue No,4 through oral as well as documentary evidence while the present appellants as usual have failed to rebut the issue even they have failed to bring any record on the file of the case to prove that the Collector complied the mandatory provisions of the Act during proceedings under the Act and also complied section 23 of the Act at the time of making the impugned award in determination of market value of the acquired land. However the rent of the shops claimed by the present respondents through para- 2(vi)of the petition cannot be granted to the present respondents as the rent does not come B within the ambit of the Act and the same is beyond jurisdiction of the Referee Court.
7. ' Lastly, the learned Advocate-General argued that, the present respondents have not claimed 8% compound interest and 15% compulsory acquisition charges as such the same cannot be granted to them. The contention is also having devoid of substance, the point concerns with the mandatory provisions of the Act and 8% of compound interest cannot be refused even the owners waived the same and likewise the 15% of compulsory charges also cannot be departed from the award or from enhanced amount under law.
8. ' Consequent upon the above discussion we dismiss the appeal and uphold the impugned judgment/decree passed by the learned referee Court. No order as to costs.