UMMER SUFYAN M. Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Certain land belonging to the petitioner was subject matter of acquisition. Though an award was passed under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, initially, a fresh award was passed under the provisions of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as the 2013 Act) on a finding that the award had to be passed in terms of the new Act and not in terms of the old Act. The said award under the provisions of the 2013 Act was made on 20/5/2021. The petitioner preferred Ext.P8 application under Sec. 64 of the 2013 Act seeking a reference to the reference Court for the purposes of re-determining the compensation payable to the petitioner. This application of the petitioner has been rejected by Ext.P9.

(2.) The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that a reading of Ext.P9 will show that the authority had not taken into consideration the provisions of Sec. 64 of the 2013 Act and had rejected Ext.P8 application for reference on the ground that the entire compensation amount had already been paid to the petitioner. It is submitted that under the provisions of Sec. 64 of the 2013 Act, the authority can only refer the matter to the reference Court and he has no discretion to reject it as has been done in the facts of the present case.

(3.) The learned Government Pleader on instructions would submit that the application for reference should have been made within 30 days from 20/5/2021. It is submitted that the reference application has not been submitted within the time specified and therefore, the reference application could only have been dismissed.