Ummer Sufyan M. vs State Of Kerala

Gopinath P, J

Certain land belonging to the petitioner was subject matter of acquisition. Though an award was passed under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, initially, a fresh award was passed under the provisions of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as the 2013 Act) on a finding that the award had to be passed in terms of the new Act and not in terms of the old Act. The said award under the provisions of the 2013 Act was made on 20.5.2021. The petitioner preferred Ext.P8 application under Section 64 of the 2013 Act seeking a reference to the reference Court for the purposes of re-determining the compensation payable to the petitioner. This application of the petitioner has been rejected by Ext.P9.

The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that a reading of Ext.P9 will show that the authority had not taken into consideration the provisions of Section 64 of the 2013 Act and had rejected Ext.P8 application for reference on the ground that the entire compensation amount had already been paid to the petitioner. It is submitted that under the provisions of Section 64 of the 2013 Act, the authority can only refer the matter to the reference Court and he has no discretion to reject it as has been done in the facts of the present case.

The learned Government Pleader on instructions would submit that the application for reference should have been made within 30 days from 20.5.2021. It is submitted that the reference application has not been submitted within the time specified and therefore, the reference application could only have been dismissed.

The learned counsel for the petitioner, in reply, would submit that even if it were to be held that the application for reference was beyond the period of 30 days on an application of the proviso to Section 64, the application can be considered by the District Collector, if the petitioner can show sufficient reasons for not filing the application within the time of 30 days.

Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader, I am of the opinion that this writ petition is liable to be allowed. Ext.P9 does not appear to have been issued taking into consideration the provisions of S.64 of the 2013 Act. In the result, this writ petition is ordered as under :_

i) Ext.P9 communication of the 3rd respondent is quashed.

ii) The 3rd respondent is directed to reconsider Ext.P8 application filed by the petitioner also taking into account the provisions of the proviso to Section 64 of the 2013 Act if so advised, the petitioner may file an application for seeking the benefit of the extended period of limitation in terms of the proviso to Section 64 of the 2013 Act.

iii)The 3rd respondent shall reconsider Ext.P8 application after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and within a period of two month from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment.