Petitioners must seek redress under the provisions of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition Act, as their objections do not meet application criteria under Section 64.

JUDGMENT :

RAJESH SHANKAR, J.

The present writ petition has been filed for issuance of direction upon the concerned respondents to refer the petitioners’ show cause reply dated 23.01.2017 against the notice for vacating the land and the house situated over Plot Nos. 1 & 2, Mouza-Pokala @ Kasiya Dih, P.S-Tandwa, District-Chatra treating the same as objection 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’) as well as to refer the said reply to the cornered authority for adjudication under Section 69 of the Act, 2013 and to pay appropriate compensation to the petitioners as their houses were demolished by the respondents without lawfully acquiring the said land.

2. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondent Nos. 1 & 4, paragraph 7 of which reads as under:

“7. That with regard to the statement made in para 1(a) to 1(c) of the writ application the answering respondents most humbly and respectfully stated and submitted that prayer made by the petitioners which is not tenable in the eyes of law and the present writ application is fit to be dismissed.

That the answering respondents most humbly and respectfully stated and submitted that land of Khata No. 39, Plot No. 01, measuring area 0.74 Acre, Plot No. 02, measuring an area of 0.96 Acre, total 1.70 Acres has been notified for acquisition prior to 07.06.2006 and in this regard promulgation had been published and circulated so it is wrong to say that petitioners have no knowledge of the acquisition and notification of the same. That the answering respondents further most humbly and respectfully stated and submitted that promulgation of the notification will be presumed as known to all the persons.

That it would be relevant to state and submit here that several time the concerned persons have been requested to receive the compensation, but when they did not receive the same, the respondents have to deposit the same vide letter No. 94(A) L/A dated 22.02.2018.

That the answering respondents further most humbly and respectfully stated and submitted that despite getting knowledge of the same, the interested persons constructed the Kutcha structure for wall to construct but illegally in the year 2016 having intention to get more compensation for the illegally constructed house apart from the compensation of land.”

3. Subsequent to filing of the present writ petition, the petitioners have sought challenge to the concerned land acquisition proceeding i.e. Land Acquisition Case No. 05/2016-17 as well as the notices dated 30.10.2017 issued by the District Land Acquisition Officer, Chatra, as according to them, they have received lesser compensation for acquisition of their respective lands.

4. Heard leaned counsel for the parties.

5. The subsisting grievance of the petitioners is that they have been paid lesser compensation for acquisition of their respective lands. The petitioners’ show cause reply dated 23.01.2017 cannot be treated as an application under Section 64 of the Act, 2013, as on perusal of the same, it appears that it was filed pursuant to the notice issued by the respondent No.4 objecting to the acquisition of the land in question as well as requesting for payment of appropriate compensation. In the said reply they had nowhere mentioned with regard to referring the matter to the ‘Authority’.

6. Section 64 of the Act, 2013 clearly mentions that any person interested who has not accepted the award may, by written application to the Collector, require that the matter be referred by the Collector for the determination of the Authority, as the case may be, whether his objection be to