While adjudicating on a petition filed against the communication by the Land Acquisition Collector, the High Court of Himachal Pradesh noted that under section 64 of the 2013 Land Acquisition Act, the land collector is authorized only to refer the matter to the appropriate authority and does not give the discretion to determine the issue themselves.
Brief Facts:
The petitioner was recorded as the owner of some land in the Mandi District of Himachal Pradesh. Then a notification was issued under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 for the acquisition of certain land for public purposes that is for the construction of the Tatapani-Shakrala road. Some of the petitioner’s land was also proposed to be acquired and then on completion of the process of acquisition, the land acquisition collector offered the market price of the acquired land. The same was offered to the petitioner and the land was acquired.
The petitioner has contended that he had partially constructed a building on the acquired land for which he has not been paid any compensation, for the same he approached this court earlier and the petition was withdrawn with liberty to approach the appropriate forum/court, then the petitioner approached the respondent Land Acquisition Collector, Mandi, with an application
under Section 64 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation, and Resettlement Act, 2013.
Now the grievance of the petitioner is that the land acquisition collector neither heard the petitioner on his application under section 64 of the 2013 Act nor was intimated about any proceedings. Then when he submitted an RTI application, he got to know that no case for proceedings under section 64 was made out as there was no material to suggest that the house of the petitioner stood constructed on the acquired land before the issuance of the notification for acquisition. This impugned communication has been assailed by the petitioner on the basis that the land acquisition collector has exceeded the jurisdiction vested in him by virtue of Section 64 of the 2013, Act. He had no jurisdiction to decide the claim of the petitioner on merits. The only duty cast on him was to refer the matter to the appropriate authority under the 2013 Act
Observations of the Court:
The Hon’ble Court first noted Section 64 of the above-mentioned 2013 Land Acquisition Act, which talks about the reference to authority. It was noted that this provision mandates the land acquisition collector to refer the matter to the appropriate authority in case a written application is received by him, requiring to refer the matter for determination of the authority with objection either to the measurement of the land, or the amount of the compensation, or the person to whom it is payable or the rate of rehabilitation and re-settlement under Chapters 5 and 6 of the Act, ibid, or to the apportionment of the compensation among the persons interested. And the provision does not leave any discretion to the land acquisition collector to determine the issue himself. Further, it was also noted by the court that according to sub-section 2 of section 51 of the same act, the appropriate government is mandated to specify the areas within which the authority may exercise jurisdiction for entertaining and deciding the references made to it under section 64. It was accordingly concluded that the jurisdiction to decide the application under Section 64 is with the authority established under Section 51 of the Act and the only role assigned to the Collector is to refer the matter to the authority. Then for the contention that the petitioner had accepted the award and hence was not entitled to file an application under section 64, the court noted that non-acceptance of the award by the petitioner is in his conduct and it cannot be said that the petitioner accepted the award and was not entitled to file an application and for the same the court referred to the supreme court’s judgment in the case of Ajit Singh and Others Vs. State of Punjab and Others. The court then also rejected the contention regarding limitation, because no delay could be attributed to the petitioner.
The Decision of the Court:
The petition was allowed and the impugned communication was quashed and set aside. The respondent-collector was directed to make the reference to the appropriate authority in the application already filed before them under section 64.
Case Title: Reta Ram v. Land Acquisition Collector
Coram: Justice Satyen Vaidya
Case No.: CMPMO No.: 313 of 2021
Advocates for the Petitioners: Mr. Rajnish Maniktala, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Naresh Verma, Advocate
Advocate for the Respondents: Mr. H.S. Rawat, Additional Advocate General.
Read Judgment @LatestLaws.com
Picture Source :
