Collector must refer compensation apportionment disputes to the Land Acquisition Authority under Section 76 of Act, 2013.

The appellant, Kashinath Mishra, claimed ownership and cultivating possession of ancestral land in Mauza-Sarangpur, Siwan, which was acquired for the "Ramjanki Path" (NH-227A) project.

Following an award in Land Acquisition Case No. 13 of 2021–22, the appellant filed objections asserting his right to compensation against competing claims by co-sharers.

Although a Circle Officer’s report dated 09.09.2024 purportedly supported the appellant's share and right to compensation.

The State contested this interpretation before a Single Judge, arguing the report didn't suggest the land belonged to the petitioner.

The Single Judge dismissed the writ petition on 23.01.2025, leading to this Letters Patent Appeal.

1. Whether the Collector is statutorily mandated to refer a dispute regarding the apportionment of compensation or the entitlement of persons to the designated Authority under the Act of 2013.

2. Whether the Single Judge erred in dismissing the writ petition rather than directing a reference to the Competent Authority.

The court applied the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 ("Act, 2013").

Specifically, Section 76 mandates that if a dispute arises as to the apportionment of settled compensation or the persons to whom it is payable, the Collector may refer such disputes to the "Authority".

Under Section 3(f) and Section 51, the "Authority" is the Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Authority established for speedy dispute resolution.

Section 63 strictly bars the jurisdiction of Civil Courts to entertain disputes which the Collector or the Authority are empowered to decide under the Act.

The Division Bench found substantial force in the appellant’s argument that a statutory mechanism exists for resolving title and apportionment disputes.

The court reasoned that since the appellant had raised a specific claim supported by a Circle Officer’s report, and the State contested the nature of that claim, a "dispute" within the meaning of Section 76 of the Act, 2013, clearly existed.

The court determined that the Single Judge's summary dismissal was perverse because it overlooked the Collector's obligation to refer such disputes to the specialized Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Authority.

The court emphasized that the judiciary should ensure the statutory dispute-resolution process is activated rather than adjudicating the merits of the claim in a writ jurisdiction.

It held that the Collector must refer the dispute to the Competent Authority when a disagreement over apportionment arises.

The Court directed the District Magistrate-cum-Collector, Siwan, to refer the dispute to the Competent Authority upon receipt of the order, and directed the Authority to decide the matter expeditiously in accordance with law.

The Court clarified it expressed no opinion on the actual merits of the appellant's entitlement.

The LPA was disposed of accordingly.