Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 258 (ALL)

Ayub Hasan v. State of U. P.

2018-01-31

DILIP GUPTA, JAYANT BANERJI

body2018
JUDGMENT & ORDER : 1. This petition seeks the quashing of the order dated 19 June 2017 passed by the Collector Saharanpur on the application filed by the petitioner under Section 64 of The Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as the 2013 Act'). 2. The Collector has proceeded to reject the claim of the petitioner for enhancement of compensation on merits. 3. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that in terms of Section 64 of the 2013 Act all that is required to be done by the Collector is to refer the matter to the Authority for its determination and cannot take a decision on merits regarding the claim made in the application. 4. Learned Standing Counsel has, however, submitted that the order passed by the Collector does not call for any interference by the Court. 5. We have considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties. 6. The award was made by the Special Land Acquisition Officer on 18 October 2015. The provisions of Section 64 of the 2013 Act which deals with reference to the Authority is reproduced below: "64.(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." 7. A perusal of the aforesaid section indicates that any person who is interested in not accepting the award may by written application to the Collector require the matter to be referred by the Collector for determination of the Authority. A perusal of the aforesaid section indicates that any person who is interested in not accepting the award may by written application to the Collector require the matter to be referred by the Collector for determination of the Authority. The determination has, therefore, to be made by the Authority and the Collector has no jurisdiction to entertain the application. 8. In the present case, as noted above, the Collector has proceeded to reject the claim of the petitioners on merits. The Collector at best could have referred the matter to the Authority with his comments but could not have made the determination on merits. 9. The impugned order dated 19 June 2017, therefore, deserves to be set aside and it is, accordingly, set aside. The Collector shall now refer the matter to the Authority. 10. The writ petition is, accordingly, allowed to the extent indicated above.