ORDER

1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed against the order dated 29.7.2020 (Annexure P-1) passed by the Collector, Panna in Case No.26B/121/Year 2020-21 by dismissing the application filed by the petitioner under section 64 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013.

2. The controversy involved in the present case lies in narrow compass, therefore, it is not necessary to consider the facts of the case in detail. It is sufficient to mention that the land of the petitioners has been acquired and an award was passed on 9.10.2019, however, the application under section 64 of the Act, 2013 for reference was made before the Collector on 19.5.2020 which came to be dismissed by the impugned order dated 29.7.2020 passed by the Collector, Panna by holding that the application is barred by limitation.

3. Challenging the order passed by the Collector, it is submitted by Shri Dubey, counsel for the petitioner that the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 is beneficial legislation and the provision of reference has been made so that the persons whose land has been acquired may get just and fair compensation.

4. It is fairly conceded by the counsel for the petitioner that since the award was passed in the presence of the petitioner, therefore, section 64 (2) proviso (a) would be applicable and the period of limitation for filing an application under section 64 of Act, 2013 was six weeks. However, the application was filed after approximately seven months. It is fairly conceded that the application for reference was not accompanied by an application under section 5 of the Limitation Act/under section 64 (2) (second proviso) of the Act, 2013. It is submitted that in absence of the application for condonation of delay, the Collector Panna has not taken note of the powers of the Collector as provided under section 64 (2) second proviso by which he has the power to entertain an application, if the said application is filed after the expiry of period of limitation within a further period of one year. It is submitted that the application under section 64 of the Act, 2013 was filed on 19.5.2020. Although it was the duty of the petitioner to file the application under section 5 of the Limitation Act/under section 64 (2) (second proviso) of the Act, 2013 but for the fault of the lawyer, the petitioner may not be compelled to suffer irreparable loss and the Collector should have granted one opportunity to the petitioner to file an application for condonation of delay.

5. Per contra, the submissions made by the counsel for the petitioner is vehemently opposed by the counsel for the respondents. It is submitted by the counsel for the respondent No.3 that it was the mistake on the part of the petitioner of not filing an application under section 5 of the Limitation Act/under section 64 (2) (second proviso) for condonation of delay and under these circumstances, the Collector Panna did not commit any mistake by rejecting the application as barred by limitation.

6. Heard the counsel for the parties.

7. It is true that if the application is barred by limitation then an application under section 5 of the Limitation Act should also be filed explaining the sufficient cause for not filing the application within a period of limitation.

8. It is submitted that since the legislation in question is in the nature of beneficial legislation for protecting the legitimate rights of the owners of the land, then the Collector, Panna instead of dismissing the appeal on second day should have granted time to the petitioner to move an application under section 5 of the Limitation Act/under section 64 (2) (second proviso) of the Act, 2013.

9. The Supreme Court in the case of State of M.P. and another v. Pradeep Kumar and another reported in 2000(2) JLJ 340 = (2000) 7 SCC 372 has held as under :-

“11. No