The limitation period for applications under Section 64 of the Act is calculated from the date of the modified award, not the original award.

ORDER :

SUNITA AGARWAL, C.J.

1. As the issues raised in the present set of writ petitions are one and the same and hence they have been heard together and are being decided by this common order. The petitioners herein (in six connected matters), are assailing the order dated 24.09.2019 passed by the In- charge, Deputy Collector and Special Land Acquisition Officer (Naramada Yojana), Gandhidham, Land Acquisition and Rehabilitation and Resettlement Authority, Rajkot Zone, Rajkot in Miscellaneous Application No.4 of 2021, namely the respondent No.2 herein, whereby the respondent No.2 had refused to make reference under Section 64 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (in short as ‘the Act’ 2013’) on the application dated 09.01.2018 moved by the petitioners. Another order dated 26.08.2022 passed by the Presiding Officer, Land Acquisition and Rehabilitation and Settlement Authority, Rajkot Zone, Rajkot in Miscellaneous Application No.4 of 2021 is also subject matter of challenge. Facts in brief of Special Civil Application No. 2829 of 2025 are discussed hereinbelow for convenience.

2. The contention in the writ petition is that the original award by applying the Factor-1 under Section 23 of the Act’ 2013 was declared on 02.07.2015. However, subsequent modified award dated 21.11.2017 was passed by the competent authority by applying the Factor-2. Upon receipt of the compensation under the said award, the petitioner filed application under Section 64 for making reference in the year 2018. The contention is that the competent authority, namely the respondent no.2 while dealing with the said application had committed an error of law in rejecting the same on the ground of being beyond limitation by virtue of the order dated 24.09.2019.

3. The contention is that the application seeking reference of the award passed under Section 23, which was modified vide award dated 21.11.2017 by applying the Factor-2, was filed within the period of one (01) year from the date of making of the modified award, inasmuch as, the application moved by the petitioner is dated 09.01.2018. However, the fact remains that the order dated 24.09.2019 has not been challenged by the petitioner by availing appropriate remedy any further. As on date the order dated 24.09.2019 stands on record.

4. The petitioner, however, moved another application dated 01.01.2021 before the Presiding Officer, Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Authority, Rajkot Zone, invoking the provisions of the second proviso to Section 64(1) on the premise that since the Collector has failed to make a reference within the period specified under first proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 64, the applicant/ the petitioner was entitled to apply to the authority directly requesting it to direct the Collector to make the reference to it within the period of 30 days. It is this application which has been rejected vide order dated 26.08.2022.

5. It is the case of the petitioner that while rejecting the application filed by the petitioner dated 01.02.2021, the competent authority has simply proceeded to take note of the Special Land Acquisition Officer having rejected the previous application under Section 64 by the order dated 24.09.2019. It was opined that the application under the second proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 64 could not have been entertained because of the previous rejection.

6. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the both the impugned orders are illegal, unjust, arbitrary and are contrary to the provisions of law. The submission is that the first application filed by the petitioner under Section 64 of the Act’ 2013 dated 09.01.2018 could not have been rejected on the ground of being beyond the period of one year, inasmuch as, the modified award was passed on 21.11.2017. The Special Land Acquisition Officer had committed an error in computing the limitation from the date