Madhya Pradesh High Court
Siddharth Patel vs The Collector Anuppur Cum Land ... on 16 October, 2019
Author: Subodh Abhyankar
Bench: Subodh Abhyankar
1
HI GH CO URT O F M ADHYA PR ADES H:J ABA LPU R
WP No.21313/2019
(Siddharth Patel Vs. The Collector Anuppur cum Land
Acquisition Officer, Anuppur)
Dated: 16.10.2019
Dr.Rashmi Pathak, learned counsel for the
petitioner.
Shri Ankit Agrawal, learned Govt. Advocate for
the respondents-State on advance copy.
Heard on admission.
This petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India against the order dated 29.10.2018 (Annexure P-1) passed by the Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) whereby the land of the petitioner has been acquired.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the aforesaid order has been passed by the Land Acquisition Officer without following due procedure as provided under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (for short "Act, 2013"). It is further submitted that the provisions of Sections 11, 15 and 19 of the Act, 2013 have not been complied with, which are mandatory in nature, hence the impugned order is liable to be quashed.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that alternative remedy as provided under Section 64 of the Act, 2013 is not available to the petitioner, as the amount of compensation has already been transferred in the account of the petitioner through RTGS and since Section 64 of the Act, 2013 provides that any person interested who 2 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, and thus, on account of the aforesaid deposit in the account of the petitioner, although the same is accepted under protest, the respondent may consider it as an acceptance of the award, hence the remedy under Section 64 of the Act, 2013 is not available. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that even otherwise the award has been passed in violation of the Act, 2013, hence the present petition is maintainable despite availability of the alternative remedy.
On due consideration of submission as also the documents filed on record and on perusal of the provisions of Section 64 of the Act, 2013, this Court is of the considered opinion that under Section 64 a statutory alternative remedy is available to the person against whom the award has been passed. In the present case, the award was passed on 29.10.2018 whereas the writ petition has been filed by the petitioner only on 30.9.2019 i.e. after around 11 months and that too without taking recourse of the alternative remedy under Section 64 of the Act, 2013 which cannot be accepted.
The contention of the petitioner that since the amount of compensation has already been deposited through RTGS mode, hence the authority may consider the same to be the acceptance by the petitioner is also not tenable, as even according to the petitioner initially the objection was submitted by him on 6.4.2018 and thereafter when the final award was passed no objection was raised under Section 64 3 of the Act, 2013, which ought to have been preferred by the petitioner specially when Section 64 of the Act, 2013 provides that if on the request of the person, who has not accepted the award, the Collector has not referred the case to the authority, in that case the person still has the remedy to approach the appropriate authority directly within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of the application by the Collector.
The appropriate authority under the Act, 2013 is the District Judge and this Court has no reasons to believe that the appropriate authority shall not consider the grounds raised by the petitioner in accordance with law and thus, it is only after the appropriate authority has passed the final order, the petitioner may have a case to invoke writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. In view of the same, this Court does not find it to be a fit case to entertain at this stage.
As a result, the petition stands dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to approach the Collector with his grievance under Section 64 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. If the petitioner approaches the Collector within two weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order, the Collector shall, without raising any objection as to delay in filing the application decide the same in accordance with law within a further period of two weeks from the date of its filing.
(Subodh Abhyankar) Judge Digitally signed by MANJOOR AHMED Date: 2019.10.18 15:54:46 +05'30'