Collector empowered under proviso to Section 64(2)(b) of RFCTLARR Act, 2013 to condone delay in reference applications up to one year if sufficient cause shown; must consider causes like lockdown and illiteracy for delays within limit.

JUDGMENT :

HITEN S. VENEGAVKAR, J.

1. Both the petitions are filed challenging the orders passed by the Collector refusing to entertain the statutory applications under Section 64 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Settlement Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as the “Right to Fair Compensation Act”) for making reference to the competent Court of the land owners, who have raised dispute pertaining to the quantum of compensation that has been awarded in pursuance to the land acquired by respondent Nos.3 and 4.

2. Learned Advocate appearing for the petitioners submits that the reference applications of the petitioners in Writ Petition No.1508 of 2026 and Writ Petition No.1509 of 2026 have been rejected by respondent No.3 on the ground of delay of 67 and 337 days respectively. Learned Advocate for the petitioners further submits that the impugned orders rejecting the applications for condonation of delay and thereby dismissing the reference applications are bad in law, as the learned Collector is competent enough under Section 64 of the Right to Fair Compensation Act to consider the cause made out by the petitioners in delay applications and condone the delay, if the same is not beyond a period of one year.

3. Learned AGPs appearing for the respondent Nos.1 to 3 in respective petitions state that the applications preferred for condonation of delay in filing the reference applications under Section 64 of the Right to Fair Compensation Act do not disclose any sufficient cause to the satisfaction of the Collector and, therefore, the impugned orders are rightly passed.

4. We have heard both the sides and have also perused the impugned orders on record. The impugned orders categorically state that the applications under Section 64 of the Right to Fair Compensation Act, seeking reference, were filed beyond the prescribed period of six weeks and as the same have not been filed within the period of limitation, the applications were rejected. Section 64 of the Right to Fair Compensation Act reads thus:-

“64. Reference to Authority.–

(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.

(2) The application shall state the grounds on which objection to the award is taken:

Provided that every such application shall be made—

(a) if the person making it was present or represented before the Collector at the time when he made his award, within six weeks from the date of the Collector’s award;

(b) in other cases, within six weeks of the receipt of the notice from the Collector under section 21, or within six months from the date of the Collector’s award, whichever period shall first expire:

Provided further that the Collector may entertain an application after the expiry of the said period, within a further period of one year, if he