JUDGMENT :

1. The grievance raised by the petitioner in the present petition is that appropriate compensation has not been paid to him on account of acquisition of his land. The prayer in the present petition is for quashing the order dated November 11, 2020 passed by respondent No. 3 vide which his claim was rejected. Prayer has also been made for quashing the award dated August 17, 2016 passed by Additional District Magistrate (Land Acquisition), Kanpur Nagar. Prayer has been made for payment of compensation in terms of provisions of Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as ''2013 Act'').

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the land of the petitioner was proposed to be acquired by issuing notifications under Section 28 of the U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad Act, 1965 (hereinafter referred to as ''1965 Act'') read with Section 4 of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as ''1894 Act'') on March 10, 1973. As the provisions of 1894 Act are applicable for acquisition of land under 1965 Act, notification under Section 6 was issued on August 27, 1980. The award was announced on August 17, 2016 in terms of the provisions of the 2013 Act. However, assessment of the compensation was not appropriately made. Immediately thereafter on September 6, 2016, the petitioner was advised to file appeal against the award to the Commissioner, Kanpur Division, Kanpur. As the same was not being decided, Writ (C) No. 12744 of 2020 (Ram Bharose vs. State of U.P. and Others) was filed in this Court. The same was disposed of on September 8, 2020 with a direction for disposal of the appeal filed by the petitioner. The impugned order dated November 11, 2020 has been passed thereon.

3. Referring to the judgment of this Court in Writ (C) No. 44720 of 2016 (Krishna Autar and Others vs. State of U.P. and Others, prayer is that the compensation payable to the petitioner deserves to be assessed in terms thereof.

4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the award having been announced, in the case in hand, after the 2013 Act came into force, applying the procedure laid down therein, petitioner, if aggrieved, has remedy to file objection under Section 64 thereof. The same having not been filed, the award should not be permitted to be challenged by filing writ petition in this Court. No appeal was maintainable against the award before the Commissioner. That remedy was wrongly availed of by him. No relief can be granted to him at this stage.

5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the paper-book.

6. Some of the basic facts, which are not in dispute in the present petition, are that for acquisition of land of the petitioner, notifications under Sections 4 and 6 of the 1894 Act were issued on March 10, 1973 and August 27, 1980. The award was not announced immediately thereafter. It was after a period of 36 years, that on August 17, 2016, the award was announced by the Additional District Magistrate (Land Acquisition), Kanpur Nagar. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner, as may have been advised at that time, instead of filing objection under Section 64 of the 2013 Act, preferred appeal to the Commissioner, Kanpur Division, Kanpur. The same was rejected as not maintainable.

7. In terms of Section 64 of the 2013 Act, if any land owner is aggrieved by the assessment of amount of compensation on account of acquisition of land, he has remedy to file representation before the Collector within six weeks from the date of award. What we find in the case in hand is that grievance was raised by the petitioner by filing appeal to the Commissioner within six weeks from the date of the award. The same was sent by him through registered-post. After filing the appeal, petitioner had been pursuing his appeal but could not get any relief, as wrong forum was invoked.

8. Be that as it may, it is a case of a poor land owner, whose la