Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
C.JAYACHANDRAN
Roslin John D/o K.V. Joseph – Appellant
Versus
State of Kerala – Respondent
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 that there exists no sufficient cause to condone the delay in terms of the second proviso. The petitioners approached this Court by filing a Writ Petition, which culminated in Ext.P2 judgment, directing the petitioners to file necessary application before the Special Tahsildar, explaining
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 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.
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....
Knowledge of the award is crucial for invoking the statutory provisions for reference under the Land Acquisition Act, and failure to demonstrate lack of knowledge results in dismissal of the applicat....
Acquisition of land – Where no award under Section 11 of Act of 1894 has been made, then, all provisions of new Act of 2013 relating to determination of compensation would apply.
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
