Manipur High Court
Kt. Divenson Anal vs State Of Manipur & Anr on 5 August, 2024
Author: Ahanthem Bimol Singh
Bench: Ahanthem Bimol Singh
LAISHRA Digitally signed
by LAISHRAM
M DHAKESHORI
DEVI
DHAKESH Date:
ORI DEVI 2024.08.06
14:35:48 +05'30' Item No. 14-15
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR
AT IMPHAL
WP(C) No. 600 of 2021
KT. Divenson Anal ...Petitioner/s
Vs.
State of Manipur & anr. ...Respondent/s
With
WP(C) No. 566 of 2021
-B E F O R E-
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AHANTHEM BIMOL SINGH
05.08.2024
Heard Mr. Wungpam Yangya, learned counsel appearing
for the petitioners and Mr. Niranjan Sanasam, learned GA appearing
for the respondents.
[2] As there is common question of facts and law involved in
these two petitions, the same are being disposed of by this common
judgment.
[3] A land acquisition proceeding was initiated by the
Collector (LA), Chandel District, Manipur for acquisition of land for
construction/improvement of road from Km 18.00 Chandel District to
Km 39.581 Khambathel in 11 (Eleven) villages in Chandel District,
Manipur. After following due process of law, the Collector passed an
award dated 03-09-2019. Having been not satisfied with the said
compensation award, the present petitioners filed objections dated
03-10-2019 & 20-02-2020 to the aforesaid Collector raising their
WP(C)No. 600 of 2021 & Page 1
objections to the award and requesting the Collector to refer their
objections to the appropriate authority as provided under sec. 64 of
the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land
Acquisition, Rehabilitation & Resettlement Act, 2013 ( for
brevity, „the Act of 2013‟).
[4] When the Collector did not take up any positive action
with regard to the objection raised by the petitioners, the petitioners
approached this Court by filing two writ petitions being WP(C) No.
455 of 2021 and WP(C) No. 457 of 2021 for redressing their
grievances. The said two writ petitions filed by the present petitioners
were disposed of by this Court along with another writ petition
being WP(C) No. 456 of 2021 by a common order dated 06-07-2021.
The operative portion of the order passed by this Court are
reproduced hereunder for ready reference :-
"[2]. The Government of Manipur initiated land acquisition
proceedings under the Right to Fair Compensation and
Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement
Act, 2013 (for brevity, 'the Act of 2013'), in relation to 35.443
hectares of land in 11 (eleven) villages in Chandel District, State of
Manipur, for construction/improvement of the Road from Km. 18.00
Chandel District to Km. 39.581 Khambathel. The Deputy
Commissioner, Chandel, being the Collector (LA), quantified the
compensation payable for the land acquired under Award dated
03.09.2019. Aggrieved by the quantum of compensation and the R
& R measures provided therein, the petitioners in these three writ
petitions submitted representations during October and December,
2019, to the Deputy Commissioner/Collector (LA), Chandel District,
seeking enhancement of compensation in terms of Section 64 of
the Act of 2013. They also claim to have submitted reminders
thereafter in February, 2020, but to no avail. Complaining of
inaction on the part of the competent authority in making a
WP(C)No. 600 of 2021 & Page 2
reference to the Civil Court under Section 64 of the Act of 2013 for
enhancement of the land acquisition compensation and for
payment of rehabilitation and resettlement compensation, the
petitioners are before this Court.
"[3]. Section 64 of the Act of 2013 provides that any interested
person who has not accepted a land acquisition award may, by
written application to the Collector, require that the matter be
referred by the Collector for determination of the authority as to his
objections, be it as to the land measurement; or the amount of
compensation; or the person to whom it is payable; or the rights of
rehabilitation and resettlement; or the apportionment of
compensation amongst the interested persons. The first proviso to
the aforesaid statutory provision requires the Collector to make the
reference to the appropriate authority within 30 days from the date
of receipt of the application. The second proviso states that in the
event the Collector fails to make a reference, the applicant may
directly apply to the authority requesting it to direct the Collector to
make the reference within a stipulated time.
It is therefore clear that the Collector is enjoined with the
statutory duty to act upon the application submitted to him in
terms of the aforesaid statutory scheme. If the application is not in
keeping with the prescribed procedure, it would be incumbent upon
the Collector to return the application stating the reasons therefor.
In any event, it would not be open to the Collector to remain
somnolent and unmoved after receipt of an application by an
interested person under Section 64 of the Act of 2013.
"[4]. As the complaint of the petitioners is that the Deputy
Commissioner/Collector (LA), Chandel District, has not taken any
action whatsoever upon their representations/reminders, it would
suffice in the interest of justice if a direction is given to the said
authority to take appropriate action as it deems fit in terms of the
statutory scheme within a time frame.
"[5] Mr. S. Niranjan, learned Government Advocate, appearing for
the authorities, states that he has no objection to this course of
action being adopted.
WP(C)No. 600 of 2021 & Page 3
"[6] The writ petitions are accordingly disposed of directing the
Deputy Commissioner/Collector (LA), Chandel District, to take
appropriate and necessary action upon the
representations/reminders submitted by the petitioners in relation
to the Award dated 03.09.2019 in Land Acquisition Case No.
DC(CDL)/4/B-3/CDL-KBL/14 within one month from the date of
receipt of a certified copy of this order ,under proper intimation to
the petitioners."
[5] Despite the clear-cut direction and order passed by
this Court which is quoted herein above, the Collector passed an
order dated 06-08-2021 thereby rejecting the written objection
submitted by the petitioner after considering it on merit. Having been
aggrieved, the petitioners approached this Court again by filing the
present writ petitions challenging the said order dated 06-08-2021
passed by the Collector/ Deputy Commissioner, Chandel couple with
a prayer for issuing a direction to the Collector/Deputy Commissioner,
Chandel to make a reference to the appropriate authority under
section 64 of the act for a just determination of quantum of
compensation of the land acquired as well as for payment of
rehabilitation and resettlement compensation to the petitioners.
[6] I have heard the submission advanced by the learned
counsel appearing for the parties and also considered the materials
available on record. The only issue which needs to be decided in the
present writ petitions is whether the Collector is empowered /
authorized to consider and decide on merit the
objections/applications submitted by the petitioners against the
award seeking enhancement of the compensation amount, without
WP(C)No. 600 of 2021 & Page 4
making a reference to the appropriate authority as provided under
section 64 of the act of 2013.
[7] Under Section 64 of the act, it is provided that any
interested person who has not accepted the land acquisition award
may, by written application to the Collector, require that the matter
be referred by the Collector for determination of the authority as to
his objections, be it as to the land measurement; or the amount of
compensation; or the person to whom it is payable; or the rights of
rehabilitation and resettlement; or the apportionment of
compensation amongst the interested persons. Under the First
Proviso to the aforesaid section 64, it is provided that the Collector
shall, within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of the
application, make reference to the appropriate authority.
[8] In the present case, despite the clear-cut provisions of
section 64 of the act and despite the clear-cut order and direction
given earlier by this Court in its order dated 06-07-2021 passed in
WP(C) No. 455 of 2021 and two other analogous cases, the Collector
considered and decided the written objections submitted by the
petitioners on merit by passing the order dated 06-08-2021
impugned herein.
[9] In my considered view the act of the Collector, Chandel in
passing the said impugned order dated 06-08-2021 is contrary to the
statutory provision provided under section 64 of the act and the
order dated 06-07-2021 passed by this Court in WP(C)No. 455 of
WP(C)No. 600 of 2021 & Page 5
2021. This Court is also considered view that the Collector, Chandel
has no power and jurisdiction to consider the written objection
submitted by the petitioners and decided it on merit and as such the
impugned order dated 06-08-2021 is not sustainable in the eyes of
law. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 06-08-2021 is hereby
quashed and set aside and the Collector/Deputy Commissioner,
Chandel (respondent No. 2) herein is hereby directed to refer the
aforesaid two written objections submitted by the petitioners to the
appropriate authority as provided under section 64 of the act and in
terms of the earlier direction given by this Court. The whole process
should be completed within a period of 4(four) weeks from the date
of receipt of a certified copy of this order.
[10] With the aforesaid orders, the present writ petitions
are hereby disposed of.
JUDGE
Dhakeshori
WP(C)No. 600 of 2021 & Page 6
