GAURAV PATHAK Vs. STATE OF M.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner has filed this petition challenging the order dtd. 30/11/2021 contained in Annexure P/8 passed by the Collector, Singrauli.

(2.) The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the impugned order is passed without jurisdiction as under Sec. 64 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, the Collector is required to refer the matter before the appropriate authority for adjudication, if any application is received by him in this behalf. However, instead of referring the matter to the competent authority, the Collector has deemed it fit to decide it himself and rejected the same.

(3.) Referring to Sec. 64 of the Act, 2013, it is pointed out that after receiving an application, the Collector has to make a reference to the appropriate authority within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of application. In case, the Collector fails to make such a reference within the period so specified, the applicant may approach to the authority directly. However, in this matter, the Collector instead of referring the application to the competent authority for reference has himself decided the same. It is further pointed out by learned counsel for the petitioner that in the case of Dr. Prasad Shukla Vs. The State of M.P. and others [W.P. No.9193/2021] , the coordinate Bench has made certain observations against the Collector, Singrauli, which are reproduced herein as under: