The limitation for filing applications under Section 64 of the Act is strictly governed by statutory provisions, and the Collector cannot extend this period beyond the prescribed limits.

ORAL ORDER

(PER : HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MRS. JUSTICE SUNITA AGARWAL)

1. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record, suffice it to note that the challenge in the present petition is to the order dated 31.07.2024 passed by the Collector, Navsari rejecting the application under Section 64 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act’ 2013 (in short as “the Act’ 2013”), which has been filed to assail the award passed under Section 26 of the Act, 2013 dated 11.01.2021.

2. To assail the order passed by the Collector, the contention in the writ petition is that the petitioners since long have been residing at the United States and at no point of time, they have received notice under Section 21 of the Act’ 2013 calling upon the persons interested to submit their claims to compensation prior to making of the award. It is then contended that after the award was made on 11.01.2021, since the petitioners were not residing in the village, they could not come to know about the award. Moreover, the said period was affected by Covid-19 and it was otherwise not possible for the petitioners to travel to India. After everything turned to normal, the petitioners came back in the month of December, 2022 and thereafter an application dated 30.01.2023 was filed before the Collector under Section 64. The said application, however, had been returned vide communication dated 24.02.2023 stating that necessary documents were not appended with the application and with the direction that a fresh application be made along with the necessary documents.

3. However, before the receipt of the communication dated 24.02.2023, the petitioners had already returned to the United States and, therefore, they were not aware of the said communication. As a result of it, they could not make necessary arrangements for filing of the fresh application. Again, in the month of April, 2024 when the petitioners came back to India, they filed application dated 06.04.2024 along with an application seeking condonation of delay on 15.07.2024 which has been rejected by the order impugned. Further, vide order dated 31.07.2024, the application for making reference under Section 64 filed by the petitioners has been returned back on the ground of delay.

4. It is vehemently argued by the learned counsel for the petitioners that even the notice under Section 21 was not properly served. It was required that the competent land acquisition authority, would have published a notice in two daily newspapers and by affixing the same at conspicuous places to bring to the notice of all persons interested facilitating them to make objections/ claims before making of the award.

5. The attention of the Court is further invited to Section 66 of the Act’ 2013 to submit that the alternative mode of service of notice ought to have been adopted by the land acquisition authority. It is further submitted that the limitation for filing the application under section 64 for making reference has to be computed from the date of knowledge of the award and, in no case, it could commence from the date of making of the award in the instant case, that too when the petitioners have demonstrated that they have left India and could not come back because of the extraordinary adverse circumstances faced by the world due to the onset of Covid-19.

6. Dealing with all these submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioners, we may note that on a pointed query made by the Court as to whether any other alternative address had been given by the petitioners to the competent authority in the procee