In CMPMO No.313 of 2021-HP HC- Himachal Pradesh HC directs Land Acquisition Collector to refer matter regarding compensation for house allegedly constructed on acquired land to appropriate authority, says sec.64 of Land Acquisition Act of 2013 doesn’t leave any discretion with Collector to determine such issue himself
Justice Satyen Vaidya [01-05-2023]

Read Order: Reta Ram Vs. Land Acquisition Collector 

Tulip Kanth

Shimla, May 2, 2023: The Himachal Pradesh High Court has come to the aid of an aggrieved landowner by directing the Respondent/Collector to make the reference on the application already filed by him to the appropriate authority under Section 64 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013.

“ Thus, there is no doubt that the jurisdiction to decide the application under Section 64 is with the authority established under Section 51 of the Act and the only role assigned to the Collector is to refer the matter to the authority”, Justice Satyen Vaidya clarified.

The Petitioner was the recorded owner of a land comprised in District Mandi in H.P. The State Government issued a notification under Section 4 of Land Acquisition Act, 1894, for acquisition of land in villages Tatapani and Kidia of Tehsil Karsog and District Mandi for public purpose i.e. for construction of Tatapani-Shakrala road. 

Out of the above mentioned land of the petitioner, some part of it was also proposed to be acquired. On completion of process of acquisition, the Land Acquisition Collector offered the market price of the land acquired for aforesaid purpose, vide an award. Petitioner was also offered the market price of his acquired land. 

It was the petitioner’s case that he had partially constructed a building on the acquired land for which he had not been paid compensation. For redressal of his grievance, petitioner approached respondent- Land Acquisition Collector, Mandi, with an application under Section 64 with a plea to refer the matter to appropriate authority for determination of the amount of compensation for house allegedly constructed on acquired land of petitioner.

The grievance of the petitioner was that the Land Acquisition Collector neither heard the petitioner on his application nor he was intimated about any proceedings, if any, undertaken on his application. Finally, petitioner submitted an application under R.T.I. Act and in response, his counsel was served with a communication whereby it was informed that no case for proceedings under Section 64 was made out as there was no material to suggest that the house of the petitioner stood constructed on acquired land before issuance of notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.

Referring to section 64, the Bench observed that this provision clearly mandates Land Acquisition Collector to refer the matter to the appropriate authority in case written application is received by him, requiring to refer the matter for determination of the authority with objection either to the measurement of the land, or the amount of the compensation, or the person to whom it is payable or the rate of rehabilitation and re-settlement under Chapters 5 and 6 of the Act, ibid, or to the apportionment of the compensation among the persons interested. 

On receipt of an application with objection on any of the ground enumerated above, the Collector has to refer the matter to the authority,the Bench noted.

As per the Bench, the question of fact with respect to the truth of the claim of the petitioner had also to be determined by the authority and so, the Collector had no jurisdiction to go into such question.

Noting that the instance of non-acceptance of the award by the petitioner, was manifest in his conduct, the Bench opined that it couldn’t be said that the petitioner had accepted the award and hence was not entitled to file application under Section 64.

The Land Acquisition Collector had passed the award on March 30, 2015. Petitioner had approached this Court by way of a petition in the same year which remained pending till 2019. While allowing the withdrawal of writ petition, the Court had directed the exclusion of time spent during the pendency of the writ petition before this Court for computation of limitation. The application under Section 64, was filed by the petitioner before the Collector in July, 2020 and the reason assigned was the impediments created by the then prevailing COVID-19 Pandemic conditions. 

Thus, the Bench held that no delay could be attributed to the petitioner. “In any case, such question can also be gone into by the authority under the Act while adjudicating upon the claims put forth by way of application under Section 64 of the Act”, the Bench added.

Thus, allowing the petition, the Bench quashed the impugned order/communication.