BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 18.02.2026 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.SURENDER and W.M.P.(MD) Nos.3678 & 3680 of 2026 Devakalyani ... Petitioner Vs.

1.The State of Tamil Nadu rep. by Additional Chief Secretary, Revenue and Disaster Management Department, Secretariat, Chennai - 600 009.

2.The State of Tamilnadu, Rep. by Secretary, Water Resources Department, Secretariat, Chennai - 600 009.

3.The District Collector, Collectorate, Karur - 639 001.

4.The Special District Revenue Officer (Land Acquisition), Collectorate, Karur - 639 001.

5.The Special Tahsildhar (Land Acquisition), Kulithalai Taluk, Karur. ... Respondents Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, for issuance of a Writ of Certiorari to call for records pertaining to the impugned order in Na.Ka.A1/48/2024 dated 13.01.2025 issued by the third respondent and quash the same as it is without jurisdiction.

For Petitioner : Mr.S.Venkatesh For Respondents : Mr.B.Ramanathan Additional Government Pleader *****

O R D E R

Pursuant to a representation made by the petitioner seeking compensation for planted trees, crops and other infrastructure, the third respondent passed a rejection order dated 13.01.2025, which is challenged in the present writ petition.

1. The only contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that once an award is passed by the District Collector and objections are filed, the District Collector has no option but to refer the matter to the concerned authority, i.e., the Principal District Judge, in the present case. The District Collector cannot pass any orders on the objections raised against the award.

2.

3. The learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents would fairly submit that in accordance with the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”), the District Collector has no power to pass any orders on the objections raised by the parties after an award is passed.

4. Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused the materials available on record.

5. Admittedly, once an award is passed, the District Collector becomes functus officio. Under the scheme of the Act, after an award is passed, if a person who has not accepted the award makes a written application to the District Collector under Section 64 of the Act, the matter shall be referred to the concerned authority, which, in this case, is the Principal District Judge. Section 64 of the Act reads as follows:

“64. Reference to Authority.–(1) Any person interested who has not accepted the award may, by written application to the Collector, require that the matter be referred by the Collector for the determination of the Authority, as the case may be, whether his objection be to the measurement of the land, the amount of the compensation, the person to whom it is payable, the rights of Rehabilitation and Resettlement under Chapters V and VI or the apportionment of the compensation among the persons interested:

Provided that the Collector shall, within a period of thirty days from the date of receipt of application, make a reference to the appropriate Authority:

Provided further that where the Collector fails to make such reference within the period so specified, the applicant may apply to the Authority, as the case may be, requesting it to direct the Collector to make the reference to it within a period of thirty days.

(2) The application shall state the grounds on which objection to the award is taken:

Provided that every such application shall be made —

(a) if the person making it was present or represented before the Collector at the time when he made his award, within six weeks from the date of the Collector’s award;

(b) in other cases, within six weeks of the receipt of the notice from the Collector under section 21, or within six months from the date of the Collector’s award, whichever period shall f