IMPORTANT POINT
The period for seeking reference under the Land Acquisition Act runs from the date of knowledge of the award, ensuring fairness in the process.

ORDER :

Sanjay S. Agrawal, J.

1. By virtue of this petition, the petitioner-Smt Anju Mishra is questioning the legality and propriety of the order dated 06/08/2020 (Annexure P-1) (wrongly mentioned in the petition as 05/08/2020) passed by the Respondent No.2-Collector, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (C.G.) whereby, the application preferred by the petitioner under Section 64 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act, 2013”), has been rejected holding it to be barred by time.

2. Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the findings recorded by the Respondent No.2 rejecting the said application by holding the same to be barred by time, is apparently contrary to law. It is contended further that the petitioner was not aware regarding the pronouncement of the award, dated 07/06/2017 and she came to know only when the certified copy of the same was delivered to her on 02/07/2020 and, therefore, the application as was made immediately thereafter on 14/07/2020 ought not to have been held to be barred by time. In support, he placed his reliance upon the principles laid down by Hon’ble the Supreme Court in the matter of Bhagwan Das And Others Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh And Others, reported in (2010) 3 SCC 545.

3. On the other hand, learned Counsel appearing for the State/ Respondents has supported the order impugned as passed by the Respondent No.2, as the application for reference under Section 64 of the Act, 2013 was filed 3 years after the pronouncement of the said award, therefore, there is no infirmity in the order impugned passed by the Respondent No.2.

4. I have heard learned Counsel appearing for the parties and perused the entire papers annexed with this petition.

5. From perusal of the record, it appears that the land bearing Khasra No. 83/10 admeasuring 0.60 acre and Khasra No.52/5 admeasuring 0.30 acre, situated at village Saida, Patwari Halka No.41, Tahsil Takhatpur, District Bilaspur (C.G.), owned by the petitioner– Smt. Anju Mishra was acquired under the award dated 07/06/2017 (Annexure P-3) passed in Land Acquisition Case No.12-A/82/2014-15 for the construction of Cannal under the Arpa Bhaisajhar Bairaj Project, where the compensation of the land in question held by the petitioner was assessed to the tune of Rs.8,30,022/-.

6. The amount of compensation as was determined by the Land Acquisition Officer was received by the petitioner on 26/06/2020 and on the same day, she applied for obtaining the certified copy of the said award dated 07/06/2017 and in pursuance thereof, it was delivered to her on 02/07/2020 and, immediately thereafter, an application was made by her on 14/07/2020 (Annexure P-5) under Section 64 of the Act, 2013 seeking reference of her matter to the Authority, i.e. Establishment of Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation And Resettlement Authority constituted under Section 51 of the Act, 2013, as the compensation of her alleged land has illegally been determined while treating the same to be unirrigated land, though it was the irrigated one. The application so made has, however, been rejected by the concerned Authority while holding it to be barred by time by virtue of the order dated 06/08/2020 (Annexure P-1), which has been impugned by way of this petition.

7. It is to be seen from the record that although the award was passed on 07/06/2017 in the said acquisition proceeding, but the same was, however, pronounced in her absence, as no materials have been placed on record by the respondents/State, that she was present when the said award was pronounced on 07/06/2017. It was, however, expected from the respondents/ State to establish the said fact by producing the relevant order sheets in this regard that the petitioner was present at the time of pronouncement of the said award dated 07/06/2017, as the same was in their exclusive knowledge. But, for the reasons best known to them, they failed to p