[LARR Act, 2013] Gatherer’s Honor Should Be Tested In Application U/S 64 To Be Alluded To Power: High Court of Bombay

The Bombay High Court observed that Section 64 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (“LARR Act”) can only be invoked if the application under the provision challenges the Collector’s award.

It stated that the contents of the application must indicate it is an application under Section 64 of the Act.

Justice R.M. Joshi was considering the petitioner’s challenge to the order of the Deputy Collector in refusing to refer the dispute under Section 64 of the Act of 2013 to the Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Authority (Authority).

Section 64 provides that if a person has not accepted the award, they can make an application to the Collector to refer the matter for determination to the Authority.

The Court noted that to invoke Section 64, it is necessary to challenge the award of the Collector. It is not just sufficient to make a reference to Section 64, but the contents of the application before the Collector must indicate that it is an application under this provision.

“Perusal of this provision indicates that in case any person interested who has not accepted the award may, by written application to the Collector require that the matter be referred by Collector for determination of the Authority. Thus, in order to invoke this provision it is absolutely necessary for such person to challenge the award.”

Referring to the application made by petitioners before the Collector, it noted that the petitioner only prayed for not releasing compensation till adjudication of right of parties by was made by a competent court. It stated that the petitioner is not challenging the award passed by the Competent Authority.

It noted that the application of the petitioner indicates that it was made under Section 76, which provides that Collector may refer dispute regarding the apportionment of compensation to the Competent Authority.

The Court thus observed “Needless to say that, it would not be sufficient for Petitioner just to make reference of Section 64 of the Act but the contents of Application must reveal that it is an Application under this provision. The Application and prayer made therein shows that Application is essentially under Section 76 of the Act.”

It noted that the proviso to Section 64 provides for compulsory reference by the Collector to the appropriate authority. Whereas, in Section 76 provides that the Collector may refer the dispute to the authority.

Here, the Court stated that as the application of the petitioner was made Section 76, it was not mandatory for the Collector to refer the dispute to the authority.

“It is therefore held that having regard to the nature of the Application and relief prayed by the Petitioner before the Collector, the said Application is filed under Section 76 though captioned under Section 64 of the Act of 2013. Thus it was not mandatory for the Collector to refer the dispute to the authority.”

The Bombay High Court thus dismissed the petition.

Case title: Gandharva Dhaneshwar Patil vs. State of Maharashtra & ors. (Writ Petition No.5833 of 2024)