The court emphasizes the discretion of the District Collector under Section 64(2) allowing extensions for applications concerning compensation, reinforcing rights under Article 300 A of the Constitution.

JUDGMENT Exts.P11 to P18 are representations preferred by petitioners 1 to 8 seeking reference under Section 64 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (‘Act’ for short). Similarly, Exts.P19 and P20 were representations preferred by petitioners 9 and 10, which has already been considered by the 2^nd respondent/District Collector and rejected vide Exts.P21 and P22. The reason stated in Exts.P21 and P22 is the expiry of the period stipulated in (2), that is to say six weeks.

2. The 2^nd respondent had reckoned the participation of the petitioners in the proceedings which led to the issuance of the award and hence treated the cases as one governed by the proviso to Section 64 (2), thereby reckoning six weeks. Within which time, the applications for reference were not filed is the reason stated in Exts.P21 and P22. This Court notice that as per the second proviso to (2), the District Collector has power to entertain the application beyond the expiry of the period stipulated in proviso (a), for the further period of one year, if he is satisfied that there was sufficient cause for not filing the same within the period stipulated in the first proviso.

3. In the circumstances, Exts.P21 and P22 will stand set aside for not having considered the mandate of the 2^nd proviso. All the petitioners are given liberty to file necessary application for condonation of delay, espousing sufficient cause before the 2^nd respondent, which shall be treated and considered along with Exts.P11 to P20. Thereafter, the 2^nd respondent will stand directed to take a decision in Exts.P11 to P20 in accordance with law, expeditiously, at any rate, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The petitioners will produce a copy of this judgment before the 2^nd respondent for compliance. It will be open for the petitioners to produce the judgments of this Court, as well as the Apex Court, on the liberal approach to be taken in matters pertaining to condonation of delay, especially when rights under Article 300 A of the Constitution are being deprived.

This Writ Petition will stand disposed of as above.

Sd/-