Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
C.JAYACHANDRAN
Roslin John D/o K.V. Joseph – Appellant
Versus
State of Kerala – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. background of petitioners' challenge to compensation. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. authority limitations and procedural context. (Para 3 , 4) |
| 3. court's interpretation and ensuring compliance with rights. (Para 5 , 6) |
| 4. judicial directive regarding delay condonation process. (Para 7) |
JUDGMENT :
C. JAYACHANDRAN, J.
1. Petitioners are aggrieved by Ext.P9 Order of the Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Re-Settlement Authority, Kottayam, which refused to interfere with Ext.P7 Order of the Special Tahsildar. Vide Ext.P7, the delay in preferring a reference in terms of Section 64 (1) of the RIGHT TO FAIR COMPENSATION AND TRANSPARENCY IN LAND ACQUISITION, REHABILITATION AND RESETTLEMENT ACT , 2013 ('2013 Act' for short) has not been condoned, resulting in rejection of the reference application.
2. The following facts are relevant:
Revised Awards were passed by the competent authority in respect of the petitioners' property on 19.04.2022 and 11.10.2021. The 1st petitioner preferred an application for reference under Section 64 (1) on 03.09.2022. The same was dismissed, holding that the application was preferred beyond the period prescribed in the second proviso to Section 64 (2) and th
The authority must provide justifiable reasons when refusing to condone delay in processing compensation claims, ensuring compliance with statutory requirements and protecting substantive rights.
The court emphasizes the discretion of the District Collector under Section 64(2) allowing extensions for applications concerning compensation, reinforcing rights under Article 300 A of the Constitut....
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....
The provision for seeking condonation of delay under Section 64(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation And Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 influenced the cou....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the authority cannot condone delay beyond the maximum statutory period as prescribed by the relevant provisions of the Act of 2013.
The limitation period for applications under Section 64 of the Act is calculated from the date of the modified award, not the original award.
Mandamus issued for expeditious disposal of land acquisition reference and delay condonation applications.
The Referral Court lacks jurisdiction to entertain a reference made outside the statutory limit prescribed by the Land Acquisition Act, reinforcing the mandatory nature of compliance with statutory t....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
