MOHD. RAJJAK Vs. COLLECTOR/LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present petition has been filed challenging the order dtd. 14/8/2024 (Annexure P/3) passed by the competent authority under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Rehabilitation and Resettlement (RFCTLARR) Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred as 'the Act').

(2.) It is the case of the petitioner that he has preferred an application before the Collector being aggrieved by the award which has to be decided within a period of 30 days by making a reference to the competent authority in terms of Sec. 64 of the Act. In case, the competent authority fails to make a reference then in terms of second proviso to Sec. 64 of the Act, he is having a remedy before the District Judge to move an application seeking a direction to the Collector to make a reference. The petitioner filed an application to the District Judge on 4/11/2022 but the same has been rejected by the authorities on the ground that they are having no jurisdiction to entertain such applications, as there is no reference made by the Collector. He has drawn attention of this court to Sec. 64 of the Act which reads as under :- "(1) Any person interested who has not accepted the award may, by written application to the Collector, require that the matter be referred by the Collector for the determination of the Authority, as the case may be, whether his objection be to the measurement of the land, the amount of the compensation, the person to whom it is payable, the rights of Rehabilitation and Resettlement under Chapters V and VI or the apportionment of the compensation among the persons interested: Provided that the Collector shall, within a period of thirty days from the date of receipt of application, make a reference to the appropriate Authority: Provided further that where the Collector fails to make such reference within the period so specified, the applicant may apply to the Authority, as the case may be, requesting it to direct the Collector to make the reference to it within a period of thirty days.

(3.) It is seen from the records and the language of Sec. 64, the second proviso gives a liberty to the petitioner to move before the concerning authority by filing an application requesting it to direct the Collector to make a reference within a period of 30 days which goes to show that the authorities having a jurisdiction to entertain such applications and issue such directions to the Collector. However, the said application filed by the petitioner has been rejected on the ground that the authorities having no jurisdiction until and unless the Collector needs the reference to it. The very order is not in consonance with the second proviso to Sec. 64 of the Act.