Challenge to compensation quantum must be pursued through a Section 64 reference, not writ jurisdiction.

The petitioner challenged the award dated 9 March 2021 passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue), Jagdalpur, concerning compensation payable for land acquisition, seeking its setting aside

The State objected to the maintainability of the writ petition on the ground that the petitioner had already received the compensation awarded and was, in substance, seeking enhancement or proper determination of the compensation amount. According to the State, the petitioner’s remedy was to seek a reference under Section 64 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013

The petitioner contended that the challenge also questioned the authority and jurisdiction of the officer and the legality and nature of the award, and that receipt of compensation did not bar such a challenge

Whether the writ petition challenging the award was maintainable when the petitioner had received the compensation and the principal grievance related to the quantum or proper determination of compensation

Whether the petitioner was required to pursue the statutory remedy of seeking a reference under Section 64 of the 2013 Act instead of invoking writ jurisdiction

The Court applied Section 64 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, which provides a statutory mechanism for seeking a reference regarding disputes concerning the compensation award and its proper determination

The Court held that where the principal relief in a land-acquisition matter concerns enhancement or proper determination of compensation, the aggrieved person should pursue the statutory reference remedy rather than seek adjudication of the compensation dispute through a writ petition

Although the petitioner asserted that the award was challenged on jurisdictional and legal grounds apart from the quantum of compensation, the Court assessed the substance of the principal relief sought. It concluded that the petition essentially sought enhancement and proper determination of the compensation awarded

In view of the specific statutory remedy under Section 64 of the 2013 Act, the Court considered it appropriate for the petitioner to approach the competent authority through a reference. The Court therefore declined to examine the merits of the challenge, including the petitioner’s contentions regarding jurisdiction and legality of the award

The competent authority was directed to consider and decide the reference by passing an appropriate and reasoned order, and the High Court expressly clarified that it had expressed no opinion on the merits of the case