Jabalpur. Vivek Aggarwal, Justice of Madhya Pradesh High Court, has directed to inspect the files of the district judge and submit a report about the functioning of the district judge, dismissing the order passed by a district judge related to the right to appropriate compensation and transparency in the land acquisition, rehabilitation and rehabilitation Act 2013. Justice Aggarwal gave instructions that if the scholar IV District Judge had read the provisions under Section 64 of the law, then such orders would not have been passed. Justice Vivek Aggarwal has sent the case to the concerned District Judge to take a decision on the application on the application on the application on the application.
Justice Vivek Aggarwal of Madhya Pradesh High Court.
The petition was filed by the order of the District Judge in which an application under Section 64 of the law was refused to consider. The district judge had said that the Collector has not given reference and due to lack of this, the petition is not worth the hearing. Whereas, the law provides that the person who does not take compensation for the acquisition may demand that the matter be sent by the Collector for the decision of the authority. According to Section 64 of the law, the Collector will have to refer to the appropriate authority within 30 days in the matter of compensation. If not done, the applicant can apply to the authority.
The Madhya Pradesh High Court said that the petitioner had approached the appropriate authority only when the Collector did not take action on his application within 30 days. The High Court said that this application could not be dismissed only on the basis that the Collector did not give any reference. Justice Vivek Aggarwal further said that an application was given before the Collector in 6 weeks of information given under Section 37 (2) of the Act. Therefore, the District Judge failed to read the provision given under Section 64 and passed the order. Along with this, the Madhya Pradesh High Court rejected the disputed order of the district judge. Also directed the District Judge to take a decision on the petitioner’s application.
