When exercising functions under land acquisition laws, the Collector acts as a statutory authority rather than a court. Consequently, the Collector lacks the power to condone delays or extend the prescribed statutory limitation period, rendering any time-barred application for reference unsustainable.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Shri Anirudh Singh, Advocate holding brief of Shri Indrakesh Kumar Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri Devesh Vikram, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel as well as Shri Fuzail Ahmad Ansari, learned Standing Counsel for State- respondents and Shri Gopal Verma, learned counsel for respondent-Union of India.

2. The instant writ petition is preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the validity of the impugned order dated 06.11.2024 passed by the Collector, Siddharath Nagar in Case No.1461 of 2024, Computerized Case No.D202417630001461 (Ajay Kumar Srivastava vs. State of U.P. and others) in the proceeding under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894[Act, 1894] read with Section 64 of Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013[Act, 2013] whereby the application dated 24.09.2024 filed by petitioner for enhancement of award was rejected.

A. FACTS

3. Before considering the rival contentions, it is apt to have a glance over the facts of the case. The State Government initiated acquisition proceedings in Mauja Dhanaura, Mustahakam, Tappa Khajahani, Pargana Naugarh, Tehsil Shoharatgarh, District Siddharath Nagar, for the establishment of the Sashastra Seema Bal Chauki. A notification under Section 4(1)/17 of the Act, 1894 was issued on 11.09.2008 and published in the Official Gazette on the same date. It was thereafter published in widely circulated newspapers, namely ‘Rashtriya Sahara’ and ‘Amar Ujala’, on 30.11.2008 and 02.12.2008, respectively, followed by local publication (Munadi) on 27.12.2008. A declaration under Section 6(1)/17 of the Act, 1894 was notified on 09.11.2009 and published in the Gazette on the same date, as well as in the newspapers ‘United India’ and ‘Aaj’ on 10.12.2009, with local publication effected on 27.12.2009. An award under the Act, 1894 was ultimately made on 22.08.2013.

4. It is borne out from the record that the petitioner, for the first time, filed an application on 24.09.2024 seeking reference before the Collector under Section 64 of the Act, 2013. The Collector, by the impugned order, rejected the said application by taking into consideration the limitation prescribed under Section 18 of the Act, 1894. Since the application was filed under the Act, 2013, which came into force with effect from 01.01.2014, the same was held to be barred by limitation and accordingly rejected. The said order has been challenged under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

B. ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that the petitioner had rightly invoked the provisions of the Act, 2013, which came into force on 01.01.2014. It is submitted that upon becoming aware of the alleged discrimination, the petitioner moved an application for reference under Section 64 of the Act, 2013.

6. In support of his submissions, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mohar Singh (Dead) through LRs and others vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others, [2023 (12) ADJ 527 (SC). It is argued that the application ought to have been considered on merits and the matter was liable to be referred to the competent court, and that the Collector had arbitrarily rejected the application filed under Section 64 of the Act, 2013. Accordingly, it is prayed that the impugned order be set aside and a direction be issued to the Collector to refer the matter to the appropriate court.

C. ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF STATE RESPONDENTS

7. Per contra, th