S.64 Right To Fair Compensation Act: HP High Court Rules Collector Bound To Refer Objections Against Land Acquisition Award To Appropriate Authority

The Himachal Pradesh High Court has ruled that in terms of Section 64 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, the Collector has a duty to refer the objections raised against land acquisition award to the appropriate authority.

"The provision of Section 64 of 2013, Act does not leave any discretion with the Land Acquisition Collector to determine the issue himself. On receipt of an application with objection on any of the ground enumerated above, the Collector has to refer the matter to the authority," Justice Satyen Vaidya observed.

The court was hearing a plea in terms of which the petitioner had prayed that the order passed by respondent-Land Acquisition Collector, whereby his application for reference under Section 64 had been rejected, may be quashed and set aside.

The case involved the acquisition of land in villages Tatapani and Kidia of Tehsil Karsog and District Mandi, H.P. for public purpose, i.e. for construction of Tatapani-Shakrala road. The petitioner's land in Mohal Tatapani, Tehsil Karsog, District Mandi and was proposed to be acquired.

The petitioner claimed that he had partially constructed a building on the acquired land for which he has not been paid compensation. The petitioner approached the respondent Land Acquisition Collector, Mandi, with an application under Section 64, praying for referring the matter to the appropriate authority for determination of the amount of compensation for the house allegedly constructed on the acquired land of the petitioner.

The Land Acquisition Collector did not hear the petitioner on his application, nor did he intimate the petitioner about any proceedings undertaken on his application, it was alleged.

In response to an application under the RTI Act, the petitioner's 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 the issuance of the notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.

The petitioner assailed the impugned communication, on the ground that the Land Acquisition Collector exceeded the jurisdiction vested in him by virtue of Section 64 of the 2013 Act.

Per contra the respondent contested the claim of the petitioner, stating that there was no house or structure on the acquired land of the petitioner before its acquisition. The petitioner raised the construction subsequently with an ulterior motive and is not entitled to any compensation for the building or structure and that the petitioner has already been rightly paid the compensation in accordance with the law, it was argued.

After hearing the counsel for the parties and going through the record of the case, the Court said that Section 64 mandates that if the Land Acquisition Collector receives a written objection related to the measurement of the land, amount of compensation, person to whom it is payable, rate of rehabilitation and re-settlement, or apportionment of compensation, he must refer the matter to the appropriate authority for determination. The Collector has no discretion to determine the issue himself as the provision of Section 64 does not allow for any discretion and requires referral of the matter to the authority upon receipt of an objection on any of the grounds mentioned above, the bench underscored.

Elaborating further on the matter Justice Vaidya explained that Section 51(2) of the 2013 Land Acquisition Act requires the appropriate government to specify the areas within which the authority established under Section 51 may entertain and decide references made to it under Section 64 or applications made under the second proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 64.

"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", the bench clarified.

In view of the same the court set aside the order and directed the Collector to refer the application filed on behalf of the petitioner to the appropriate authority.

Case Title: Reta Ram Vs Land Acquisition Collector.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (HP) 32

Click Here To Read/Download Judgement