Ramvishal Tiwari vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:88726
1 WP-44835-2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR

BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VISHAL MISHRA
rd
ON THE 3 OF NOVEMBER, 2026
WRIT PETITION No. 44835 of 2026
CNR No.: MPHC010796672026
RAMVISHAL TIWARI AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Mayank Prajapati - Advocate for the petitioners.
Shri A.S. Baghel - Government Advocate for the respondents/State.
ORDER
This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed
assailing the order dated 27.10.2025 passed by respondent No.2/ Collector District
Sagar (M.P.) whereby petitioners' application under Section 64 of the Right to
Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and
Resettlement Act, 2013 (for short, 'the Act of 2013') has been rejected as not
maintainable on the ground of limitation.
2. It is the case of the petitioners that they are owners of their respective
agricultural land situated at Village Manki Salaiya Tehsil Rahatgarh District Sagar
(M.P.). The said land was acquired for public purpose of construction of Madhiya
Dam under the Bina Irrigation Project. The SDO & Land Acquisition Officer,
Rahatgarh passed Award dated 24.11.2022 determining compensation under the
provisions of the Act of 2013. It is submitted that the compensation determined by
the authorities was not in accordance with the prevailing market value or the
guideline rates prescribed under the Act. The petitioners raised objections but the
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SHUBHANKAR
MISHRA
Signing time: 03-11-2026
17:07:34

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:88726
2 WP-44835-2026
same remained unaddressed. Thereafter, the petitioner submitted application

under Section 64 of the Act of 2013 on 16.07.2024 seeking fair and just
compensation as per law. The Collector vide impugned order dated 27.10.2025
rejected the application on the sole ground that it was filed belatedly.
3. It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that the order impugned is
contrary to the settled principles of law as the Collector has failed to exercise his
discretion under the proviso to Section 64(2) of the Act of 2013 and since there is
violation of principles of natural justice, the impugned order is liable to be set
aside. He has placed reliance upon the order dated 20/11/2025 passed by this
Court in the case of Jagmohan Yadav and Others Vs. The State of Madhya
Pradesh and Others in Writ Petition No.44367/2025.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents/State has supported the
impugned order as the same has been passed on due consideration of facts.
However, learned State counsel could not dispute the order passed by this Court in
the case of Jagmohan Yadav (supra).
5. Heard learned counsels for the parties and perused the record.
6. The question which comes up for consideration before this Court is that
whether the Collector is justified in dismissing the reference application of the
petitioner filed under Section 64 of the Act of 2013 being barred by limitation or
not?
7. The Hon'ble Supreme Court while dealing with the similar aspect in the
case of Suresh Kumar vs State of Haryana and others , reported in 2025 SCC
OnLine SC has held as under :
13. In view of the above discussion, we are of the considered view that
the delay ought to have been condoned, since the position that the land
loser had, in fact, asked for the appeal to be filed but it was not, for no
fault of his, is an uncontroverted position of fact. Consequently, the
appeals are allowed. The impugned judgment and orders are set aside
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SHUBHANKAR
MISHRA
Signing time: 03-11-2026
17:07:34

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:88726
3 WP-44835-2026
and the matters are remanded to the High Court for consideration afresh,
on all aspects, save and except delay. Such consideration is to be made,
uninfluenced by the observations made hereinabove. However, for the
delayed period that is being condoned, the appellant shall not be entitled
to any interest. The Registry is requested to transmit a copy of this order
to the learned Registrar General, High Court of Punjab and Haryana, for
necessary follow up action. Because the Award from which the appeals
arise is of the year 2005, the High Court is requested make an
endeavour to decide the matters expeditiously.

8. Once the land belongs to the petitioners is acquired by the respondents-
authorities for public purpose and compensation is not paid in accordance with
law then in terms of Section 64 of the Act of 2013, reference is required to be
made by the Collector to the appropriate authority. However, instead of making a
reference on the application filed by the petitioners, the Collector has dismissed
the petitioners' application filed under Section 64 of the Act of 2013 on the ground
of delay and, that cannot be done. This aspect was considered by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of Suresh Kumar (supra) as well as by this Court in the
case of Krishnachand and another vs State of M.P. and others : WP No. 19521 of
2017 decided on 13.10.2022 as well as in the case of Jagmohan Yadav (supra).
9. In this regard, it is pertinent to refer to the provisions of Section 64 of
the Act of 2013 which reads as under :
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—
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SHUBHANKAR
MISHRA
Signing time: 03-11-2026
17:07:34

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:88726
4 WP-44835-2026
(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 first expire:
Provided further that the Collector may entertain an application after the
expiry of the said period, within a further period of one year, if he is
satisfied that there was sufficient cause for not filing it within the period
specified in the first proviso.

10. If the aforesaid settled principle of law is applied to the facts and
circumstances of the present case as well as Section 64 of the Act of 2013 is taken
note of, then the authority i.e. Collector is having no jurisdiction to reject the
application filed under Section 64 of the Act of 2013 merely on the ground of
delay. Under these circumstances, the impugned order dated 27.10.2025 is
unsustainable. The same is hereby quashed. The matter is remanded back to the
Collector Sagar to take recourse of law for referring the matter to the appropriate
authority in terms of Section 64 of the Act. The entire exercise be completed
within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.
11. In above terms, the petition stands allowed and disposed of finally. No
order as to costs.
(VISHAL MISHRA)
JUDGE
Shbhnkr
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SHUBHANKAR
MISHRA
Signing time: 03-11-2026
17:07:34