Point of Law: Section 64 of 2013, Act, reads as reference to Authority.

JUDGMENT :

Satyen Vaidya, J.

Petitioner has prayed for following substantive reliefs:-

(a) That the order dated 01.09.2021 (Annexure P-18) passed by the respondent whereby the application for reference under Section 64 had been rejected, may be quashed and set aside.

(b) That the application under Section 64 of the Act of Right to Fair compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 may be allowed and the dispute may be referred to the Authority as specified under Section 64 of the Act.

(c) That the petitioner may be suitably compensated on account of legal malafides of respondent.

2. Petitioner was recorded owner of land comprised in Khata No.3, Khatauni No.3, Khasra No. 1224/793, measuring 00-19-13 Hectares in Mohal Tatapani, Tehsil Karsog, District Mandi, H.P.

3. On 06.02.2013, Special Secretary Public Works, Government of H.P., issued notification under Section 4 of Land Acquisition Act, 1894, for acquisition of land in villages Tatapani and Kidia of Tehsil Karsog and District Mandi, H.P. for public purpose i.e. for construction of Tatapani-Shakrala road. Out of the above mentioned land of the petitioner, land measuring 0-9-2 hectares was also proposed to be acquired and was depicted by Khasra No. 1224/793/1. On completion of process of acquisition, the Land Acquisition Collector offered the market price of the land acquired for aforesaid purpose, vide award No. 128, dated 30.03.2015. Petitioner was also offered the market price of his acquired land. Subsequent to acquisition, land acquired from petitioner was depicted by a Khasra No. 1432/1224/793.

4. According to the petitioner, he had partially constructed a building on the acquired land for which he has not been paid compensation. For redressal of his grievance, petitioner approached this Court by way of CWP No. 2886 of 2015, however, petitioner withdrew CWP No. 2886 of 2015 on 23.08.2019 with liberty to approach the appropriate Forum/Court. Accordingly, the writ petition was disposed of in following terms:-

“3. Petition is permitted to be withdrawn, with liberty to the petitioners to approach the appropriate Forum/Court of law for the redressal of their grievance. It is made clear that in the event of any such proceedings being initiated by the petitioners, then the time spent by them shall be exclude for the purpose of computation of limitation i.e. time as from the date when the petition was filed till today. Petition stands disposed of, so also the pending miscellaneous applications, if any.”

5. Thereafter, petitioner approached respondent- Land Acquisition Collector, Mandi, with an application under Section 64 of the Right to Fair compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 ( for short “2013 Act”). A prayer was made for referring the matter to appropriate authority for determination of the amount of compensation for house allegedly constructed on acquired land of petitioner.

6. The grievance of the petitioner is that the Land Acquisition Collector neither heard the petitioner on his application under Section 64 of 2013 Act nor petitioner was intimated about any proceedings, if any, undertaken on his application. Finally, petitioner submitted an application under R.T.I. Act and in response, his counsel was served with a communication, Annexure P-19, whereby it was informed that no case for proceedings under Section 64 was made out as there was no material to suggest that the house of the petitioner stood constructed on acquired land before issuance of notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.

7. Petitioner has assailed the impugned communication, Annexure P-19, on the ground that the Land Acquisition Collector has exceeded the jurisdiction vested in him by virtue of Section 64 of the 2013, Act. He had no jurisdiction to decide the claim of the petitioner on merits. The only duty cast on him was to refer the matter to appropriate authority under 2013 Act.

8. Res