(A) Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 – Section 64 – Land Acquisition – Reference – Notice – Limitation – Matter against Land Acquisition pending in Supreme Court – Award of Land Acquisition for some persons – The application praying for forwarding of the Reference to District Court, for determination of compensation was rejected – Approach to High Court – Held: Period prescribed for moving an application seeking a Reference is extandable by one year, provided the Collector is satisfied that there was sufficient cause for not filing the same within the specified period. Service of notice to petitioner not proved – Application was filed by the petitioner within a period of one year and about ten days, respondent ought to have entertained the application as he was empowered to do so in terms of the second proviso to Sub-section (2) of Section 64 of the 2013 Act. – Writ allowed- Respondent is directed to forthwith forward the application of the petitioner alongwith the Reference to the Statutory Authority for adjudication of the Reference on merit. (Para 11to 17)
(B) Notice – Proof of Service – Notice returned back with endorsement “Sir, refused to accept” – The only prudent conclusion which can be drawn from the perusal of Annexure R-2/2 is that this notice was never served upon the petitioner as it was not mentioned in the endorsement that it was the petitioner upon whom the notice was served and it was he who refused to accept the same. (Para 15)
HIMACHAL PRADESH HIGH COURT JUDGMENT
Citation: 2023 STPL(Web) 44 HP
PREM LAL Vs. STATE OF H.P. & OTHERS
CWP No.2300 of 2018-Decided on 04-07-2023
https://stpllaw.in/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/2023-STPLWeb-44-HP.pdf
