ORDER

1. The petitioner has filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India questioning the legality, validity and propriety of the order dated 19.5.2022 (Annexure P/10) passed by the Collector, District Singrauli (respondent No.2) in pursuance to the order passed by this Court on 14.2.2022 in Writ Petition No.2970/2022.

2. Shri Upadhyay, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that when this Court has earlier directed the Collector to entertain the application of reference made under section 64 of Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as the Act, 2013), then the said authority has no right to reject the application whereas he was under the obligation to refer the matter to the competent Court to decide the reference raised by the petitioner.

3. On the other hand, Shri Kekre, learned Government Advocate submits that from the order of the Collector, it is clear that the authority has rejected the application on the ground that the same does not come within the scope of section 64 of the Act, 2013 for the reason that since the land on which the petitioner is claiming right is recorded in the name of the State Government, therefore, no award in respect of the said land has been passed by the Land Acquisition Officer and as such, reference doesn't lie.

4. In response to aforesaid, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the land originally recorded in the name of the petitioner and was proposed to be acquired in the initial notification of acquisition i.e. 15.12.2017 (Annexure P/3) and the said land was described as survey No.1005/2 area measuring 0.57 hecatare and survey No.1006 area measuring 0.180 hectare. However, he submits that when revenue entries were transferred in computer record, under some misconception the said land has been recorded in the name of State Government and, therefore, despite making proposal for acquisition of that land in the basic notification (Annexure P/3), it is not acquired in view of entries shown in respect of the said land as it got recorded in the name of State Government. He submits that though the award was passed by the Land Acquisition Officer, but land in question was neither taken note of nor any compensation in regard to that land was determined. He also submits that thereafter, the petitioner has raised an objection before the Land Acquisition Officer i.e. Annexure P/4 and on his application, the Sub Divisional Officer, Chitrangi, conducted an enquiry and submitted its report i.e. Annexure P/7 before the Collector, Singrauli, saying that in the award, land over which the petitioner is claiming right was left out and compensation was also not determined. He submits that the petitioner has also moved an application before the Collector, but the same got rejected on 30.11.2021 (Annexure P/8) by the authority saying that unless the title over the land is determined by the competent Court, no reference can be made under section 64 and thereafter, a petition was preferred before this Court which got registered as W.P.No.2970/2022 and decided vide order dated 14.2.2022 (Annexure P/9) directing Collector to consider the application and refer the matter under section 64 to the competent authority. Subsequently, vide impugned order dated 19.5.2022 (Annexure P/10), the Collector has rejected the application of the petitioner saying that under Section 64 does not come into operation as the land over which the petitioner is claiming right is not the part of award and as such, the compensation has also not been determined.

5. Considering the rival submissions made by counsel for the parties and perusal of record, I am of the opinion that the order of the Collector does not suffer any materiel irregularity because in the revenue record, the land in question was shown to be of State Government, therefore, neither it was made a part of the award nor any compensation was determined. Howe