Limitation for making a reference under the Act is based on the date of the amended award, not the original award.

MR ANAND R PATEL(2424) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1 MS. HETAL PATEL, AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2,3 ========================================================== CORAM:HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MRS. JUSTICE SUNITA AGARWAL and HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.N.RAY Date : 28/07/2025 COMMON ORAL ORDER (PER : HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MRS. JUSTICE SUNITA AGARWAL)

1. All the writ petitions, raise a common question for consideration before this Court. They have been heard together with the consent of the learned counsels for the parties and are being decided by this common judgment.

2. Perused the additional affidavit filed on behalf of the original petitioners in compliance of the order dated

06.03.2025 passed by us. The petitioners herein are farmers who have been non-suited vide order dated 01.08.2019/24.09.2019 from making reference under Section 64 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (“Act of 2013” for short), on the premise that the application moved by them under Section 64 of the Act, 2013 dated 09.01.2018, was beyond the limitation prescribed under Section 64 sub Section (2) of the Act, 2013.

3. Pertinent is to note that the original award applying Factor-1 was passed on 02.07.2015 and the said award was modified by the application of the Factor-2 vide award dated 21.11.2017. After receipt of the Award dated 21.11.2017, the petitioners/land holders filed a reference application on 09.01.2018 in the office of the Collector asking him to make a reference to the competent authority namely the Land Acquisition and Resettlement Authority constituted under the Act, 2013, in accordance with the provisions of Section 64 of the Act, 2013.

4. These applications have been rejected on

01.08.2019/24.09.2019 solely on the ground that the original award was passed in the year 2015 and the application made on 09.01.2018 is beyond limitation prescribed in Section 64 of the Act, 2013.

5 A perusal of the order dated 01.08.2019/24.09.2019 passed by the competent authority namely the Office of the Collector makes it clear that it was an illegal exercise of power, inasmuch as, the limitation was required to be computed from the date of making of the amended award i.e. dated 21.11.2017. Taking note of the clause (a) of the proviso to Sub-Section 2 of Section 64 , pertinent is to note that the limitation prescribed therein for making of an application for reference under Section 64 of the Act is six weeks from the date of Collector’s Award, which was not over by 09.01.2018. The fact that the original award of the year 2015 was made by applying Factor-1 and amended award was passed on 21.11.2017 by the application of multiplication Factor-2 as per the decisions of this Court, is sufficient to record that the original award of the year 2015, where market value was computed by applying Factor-1 stood amended with the subsequent award dated 21.11.2017 with the application of multiplication Factor-2.

6. There was no question for the petitioners to make any reference against the original award when he was agitating his right for enhancement of the market value by application of multiplication Factor-2 which was accepted only with the making of the amended award dated 21.11.2017. The order dated 01.08.2019/24.09.2019 passed by the competent authority in rejection of the application dated 09.01.2018 for making of the reference, therefore, cannot be sustained.

7. We may also note that the proviso to Sub Section (1) of Section 64 mandates the Collector to make a reference to the appropriate authority within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of the app