MP HC Quashes Delay Rejection, Orders Reference Of Madhiya Dam Landowners’ Compensation Claim Within 60 Days

In brief

The question

Whether the Collector was justified in dismissing the petitioners’ Section 64 application as barred by limitation

The court held

The Court held that the Collector’s order dated 27 October 2025 was unsustainable, quashed it, and remanded the matter to the Collector, Sagar, to take recourse to law for referring the matter to the appropriate Authority under Section 64.

It also directed

The Court directed that the exercise be completed within 60 days of receipt of a certified copy of the order.

The petition was allowed and disposed of, with no order as to costs.

01Facts

The petitioners’ agricultural lands in Village Manki Salaiya, District Sagar, were acquired for construction of Madhiya Dam under the Bina Irrigation Project.

¶ 1

The Land Acquisition Officer made an award on 24 November 2022.

¶ 1

The petitioners, dissatisfied with the compensation, applied under Section 64 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (“2013 Act”) on 16 July 2024.

¶ 2

The Collector rejected the application on 27 October 2025 as time-barred.

¶ 2

The petitioners challenged that order under Article 226, arguing that the Collector had failed to consider the proviso permitting an application to be entertained for sufficient cause.

¶ 3

02Issues

i.Whether the Collector was justified in dismissing the petitioners’ Section 64 application as barred by limitation

¶ 6

ii.Whether the Collector was required to take steps to refer the compensation dispute to the appropriate Authority under Section 64

¶ 8–10

03Law Applied

Section 64(1) of the 2013 Act permits a person interested who has not accepted the award to apply to the Collector for reference of specified objections to the appropriate Authority; the Collector must make the reference within the prescribed period.

¶ 9

Section 64(2) prescribes the time limits for making an application and provides that the Collector may entertain an application within a further period of one year if satisfied that sufficient cause prevented timely filing.

¶ 9

The Court relied on Suresh Kumar v. State of Haryana and Others, cited as 2025 SCC OnLine SC (citation incomplete in the judgment), and on Krishnachand v. State of M.P., W.P. No. 19521 of 2017, decided 13 October 2022, and Jagmohan Yadav v. State of Madhya Pradesh, W.P. No. 44367 of 2025, in addressing delayed Section 64 applications.

¶ 7–8

Provisions in the judgment · 2 · Linked ones open on LawLens

Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 Section 64 Section 21

04Reasoning

The Court considered the Collector’s rejection of the application solely on limitation and held that the Collector could not dismiss it on that ground rather than take recourse to the Section 64 reference process.

¶ 8–10

Applying the principles drawn from the cited decisions and Section 64, it found the impugned order unsustainable and concluded that the matter should be returned to the Collector for action in accordance with that provision.

¶ 8–10