The Collector must adjudicate claims under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition Act before referring matters for enhancement, ensuring all procedural requirements are met to uphold justice.

JUDGMENT :

1. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.

2. Petitioner in this writ petition seeks to assail the order dated 17^th February, 2025 (Annexure-5) passed by the Zone Officer-cum-L.A. Collector, Subarnarekha Irrigation Project, Laxmiposi Zone, Baripada (Opposite Party No.2) in not entertaining an application filed under Section 73(1) of Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (for brevity ‘the Act’) and referring the matter back to the Authority for adjudication.

3. Mr. Nayak, learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that for acquisition of land of the Petitioner pertaining to Plot No.638 (Sarad-III) measuring an area of Ac.1.13 dec. under Khata No.137/34 of Mauza Nalagaja sand Plot No.606 measuring an area of Ac 0.09 dec, Plot No.607 measuring an area of AC 0.08 Dec, under khata no.18 of Mauza Nalagaja under Tahasil-Rasgobindpur in the district of Mayurbhanj (for brevity, ‘the case land’), compensation was also awarded in favour of the Petitioner. Some of the co-villagers being not satisfied with the quantum of compensation in their favour filed an application before the Collector, Mayurbhanj to refer the matter to the Authority. Accordingly, their applications were referred to the Authority under Section 64 of the Act and compensation awarded in their favour was enhanced. The Petitioner stating that the land of Sribatatsha Mohanty of village- Nalagaja, P.S.-Morada in the district of Mayurbhanj acquired under the same notification was enhanced by the LAR&R Authority, Cuttack in L.A.R. Case No.185 of 2022 vide judgment dated 11^th April, 2023, filed an application under Section 73(1) of the Act for enhancement of the compensation.

3.1. It is submitted by Mr. Nayak, learned counsel for the Petitioner that the Land Acquisition Collector should have adjudicated the matter on merit and passed an award under Section 73(2) of the Act. Instead, he referred the matter to the Authority under Section 73(3) of the Act for adjudication. Hence, this writ petition has been filed challenging the said order under Annexure-5.

3.2. Mr. Nayak, learned counsel for the Petitioner further submits that on an application filed under Section 73(1) of the Act, the Land Acquisition Collector is required to pass an award under Section 73(2) of the said Act. Any person, if aggrieved by such award may file an application to refer the matter to the Authority and in that event the Land Acquisition Collector could have referred the matter under Section 73 (3) of the Act. In the instant case, neither award under Section 73(2) was passed nor was any application filed to refer the matter to the Authority. Thus, there was no occasion on the part of the Land Acquisition Collector to refer the matter to the Authority for adjudication. He, therefore, submits that the impugned order under Annexure- 5 is without jurisdiction. Hence, he prays for setting aside the impugned order under Annexure-5 and to remit the matter to the Land Acquisition Collector for fresh adjudication of the petition under Section 73(1) of the Act.

4. Mr. Nayak, learned Additional Government Advocate, on instruction, submits that the kisam of the case land of the petitioner and the award of the Authority relied upon by him did not tally as observed in the impugned order under Annexure-5. Thus, the same requires adjudication of the Authority. Accordingly, the Land Acquisition Collector referred the matter to the Authority for adjudication.

5. Considering the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, this Court finds that an application under Section 73(1) of the Act was filed by the Petitioner fo