[Cites 3, Cited by 0]
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Dheeraj Prasad Sahu, vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 18 February, 2026
Author: Vishal Mishra
Bench: Vishal Mishra
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:14056
1 WP-6147-2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VISHAL MISHRA
ON THE 18th OF FEBRUARY, 2026
WRIT PETITION No. 6147 of 2026
DHEERAJ PRASAD SAHU,
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Utkarsh Agrawal - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri V. S. Choudhary - Govt. Advocate for the respondents/ State.
ORDER
In this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the
petitioner has challenged the order dated 2.2.2026 (Annexure P/1) passed by
respondent No.2- Collector, District Katni (M.P.)
2. The petitioner is the owner of the land bearing Khasra No. 54 at
Village- Amuvari, PH-1, Tehsil- Vijayraghavgarh, District- Katni ad-
measuring 0.620 Hectares. Out of the aforesaid diverted land 0.620 Hectare,
a part whereof ad-measuring 0.190 Hectare was acquired under the Land
Acquisition Act by respondents on the proposal of Bargi Vyapvartan
Pariyojna (Narmada Ghat Vikas Pradhikaran) under the provisions of the
Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition,
Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereinafter shall be referred to as
"The Act"). The award was passed on 2.6.2025. The petitioner came to know
about the award, in which, the land belonging to the petitioner has been
treated as non-irrigated, whereas the land of the petitioner is irrigated. The
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:14056
2 WP-6147-2026
petitioner received the certified copy of the award on 17.11.2025. The
grievance of the petitioner is that the competent authority has not determined
the compensation in accordance with the provisions of law. Being aggrieved,
the petitioner moved an application under Section 64(1) of the Act on the
grounds mentioned therein. The application was filed on 19.11.2025.
However, the Collector passed the impugned order on 2.2.2026. The
application was rejected on the ground of the delay without entering into
merits of the application. Hence, this petition.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that according to
proviso to Section 64 of the Act, the Collector may entertain an application
after the expiry of period of 30 days, within a further period of one year, if he
is satisfied that there was sufficient cause for not filing it within the period
specified in the first proviso.
4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner.
5. On perusal of the impugned order, it is seen the the Collector
without taking into consideration the period of limitation has rejected the
application holding that the application is beyond period of limitation. In the
present case, it is an admitted fact that the award was passed on 2.6.2025.
Thereafter, the petitioner had no knowledge about passing of the award.
When it came to the knowledge of the petitioner, the petitioner applied for
certified copy, which was received on 17.11.2025. However, the application
was filed on 19.11.2025 without copy of the award. Meaning thereby, the
application was filed well within the period of one year, which could have
been condoned by the Collector.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:14056
3 WP-6147-2026
6. In view of the aforesaid, the impugned order dated 2.2.2026
(Annexure P/1) cannot be allowed to stand. Accordingly, the same is hereby
set aside. Matter is remanded back to the Collector, District Katni, for
reconsideration of the application under Section 64 of the Act in accordance
with law taking into consideration the reasons assigned for delay and pass a
reasoned and speaking order as expeditiously as possible preferably within a
period of 30 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order.
7. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on
the merits of the case.
8. With the aforesaid, the instant writ petition stands disposed of.
(VISHAL MISHRA)
JUDGE
JP
