CHANDRABHAN YADAV Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant petition is directed against the order dtd. 8/7/2018 passed by respondent No. 2, i.e., Collector/District Magistate, Sant Kabir Nagar rejecting the application of the petitioner dtd. 15/9/2017 for referring the dispute relating to enhancement of compensation to the Authority in terms of Sec. 64 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. The petitioner has also challenged the award of the Collector dtd. 26/12/2014.

(2.) The facts which are not in dispute are that the subject land of the petitioner bearing plot No. 530 situated at Village-Khalilabad, District-Sant Kabir Nagar was acquired under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act of 1894"). The possession of the land was taken on 6/6/2012 followed by award dtd. 26/12/2014. The petitioner challenged the award in Writ - C No. 7555 of 2016 on the ground that while making the award, the principles contained in the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act of 2013") had not been followed. The said contention was not accepted as the award did make reference to the provisions of the Act of 2013, however, it was left open to the petitioner to seek reference under Sec. 64 of the Act of 2013. The petitioner, therefore, by means of application dtd. 15/9/2017, applied for the enhancement as per provisions of Sec. 64 of the Act of 2013. The said application has been rejected by the impugned order.

(3.) Indisputably, after the filing of the said application by the petitioner, a report was submitted by A.D.M. Finance and Revenue dtd. 16/12/2017 that at the relevant time, the Authority was not in existence, having not been constituted as per provisions of the Act. Therefore, it would not be possible to make the reference. It is evident from the said report that the State-respondents, at the relevant time, had no objection in referring the dispute to the Authority, but for the fact that it had not been constituted by that time.