After 10 Years’ Inaction, Karnataka HC Gives Land Officer 3 Months to Consider 2016 Railway-Acquisition Compensation Requests and Refer Them If Needed

In brief

The question

1. Whether the Land Acquisition Officer was required to consider the petitioners’ applications seeking reference under Section 64 of the 2013 Act.

The court held

The writ petitions were disposed of with a direction to the Land Acquisition Officer to consider the petitioners’ applications for enhanced compensation and, if warranted, refer the claims to the appropriate authority under Section 64 of the 2013 Act within three months of receiving the order.

It also directed

The question of interest beyond sixty days was left to the appropriate authority.

The Court further stated that failure to take proactive steps to make the references would be treated as grave misconduct, warranting disciplinary action by the Officer’s superior.

01Facts

The petitioners, whose lands in Hiremagaluru Village were acquired for a broad-gauge railway line following notifications issued in 2015, challenged the compensation fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer.

pp. 6–9

After the award notice dated 26 December 2015, they sought enhanced compensation and requested, by applications dated 16 January 2016, that their claims be referred under Section 64 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (“2013 Act”).

pp. 6–9

The Officer had not acted on those applications.

pp. 6–9

The petitioners sought mandamus requiring a reference; the State submitted that they had approached belatedly but stated that the Officer would take steps to make the references.

pp. 6–9

02Issues

i.1. Whether the Land Acquisition Officer was required to consider the petitioners’ applications seeking reference under Section 64 of the 2013 Act.

pp. 9–10

ii.2. Whether the Officer should be directed to consider those applications and, if warranted, refer the claims to the appropriate authority notwithstanding the time that had elapsed.

pp. 9–10

03Law Applied

Section 64 of the 2013 Act provides for reference of a landowner’s claim concerning compensation to the appropriate authority.

pp. 9–10

The Court treated the Collector’s consideration of a request for such a reference as a statutory duty and observed that the reference procedure should be approached liberally to enable adjudication of a land loser’s compensation claim.

pp. 9–10

The Court also proceeded under its writ jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution.

pp. 2–3

Provisions in the judgment · 1 · Linked ones open on LawLens

Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 Section 64

04Reasoning

The petitioners had promptly sought enhanced compensation and a Section 64 reference after the award notice, but the Officer had taken no action since 2016.

pp. 9–10

The Court considered that inaction unjustified and emphasized that the Officer had a duty to consider the applications.

pp. 9–10

Although the petitioners could also make representations before the appropriate authority, that did not discharge the Officer’s obligation to consider their requests.

pp. 9–10

The Court therefore directed consideration of the applications and left open the question of whether interest could be awarded for the period beyond sixty days from the date the reference was sought.

pp. 9–10

05Holding

pp. 10–11

The question of interest beyond sixty days was left to the appropriate authority.

pp. 10–11

The Court further stated that failure to take proactive steps to make the references would be treated as grave misconduct, warranting disciplinary action by the Officer’s superior.

pp. 10–11

LawLens.Karnataka High Court

Original Court PDF