Gaurav Pathak vs State Of M.P And Others

Nandita Dubey, J

Petitioner has filed this petition challenging the order dated 30.11.2021 contained in Annexure P/8 passed by the Collector, Singrauli.

The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the impugned order is passed without jurisdiction as under Section 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.

Referring to Section 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:

Surprisingly, the authority holding such a responsible post was not aware of the legal position that a land owner cannot file the

application for reference against the award directly to the District Court, whereas the application travels through the Collector and

application for reference is made before the Collector and Collector after considering the same refers the matter to the District Court.

However, due to irresponsible behaviour of the authority, litigants are unnecessarily being harassed and travelling from pillar post.

Considering the aforesaid, the order dated 30.11.2021 passed by the Collector is quashed. The petition is allowed. The matter is remitted back to the

Collector to refer the same to the competent authority in accordance with the provisions of Section 64 of the Right to Fair Compensation and

Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013.

The petition is disposed of.

Certified copy/e-copy as per rules/directions.