Dispute as to apportionment — Section 76 Where dispute arises regarding the persons to whom compensation is payable or its apportionment, the Collector must refer such dispute to the Authority and cannot decide the same. (Paras 15–16)

advocatemmmohan

Land Acquisition — Right to compensation — Dispute as to title and apportionment — Jurisdiction

Where disputed claims as to title and entitlement to compensation arise in land acquisition proceedings, the Land Acquisition Officer has no jurisdiction to adjudicate such disputes and is bound to refer the matter to the Competent Authority under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013.
(Paras 15–17)

Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 — Sections 63, 64 and 76

Sections 63, 64 and 76 of Act 30 of 2013 collectively bar adjudication of disputes relating to entitlement, title and apportionment by any authority other than the Competent Authority. The Acquisition Officer acts without jurisdiction if he decides such disputes himself.
(Paras 15–17)

Reference under Section 64 — Scope

Any person interested, who has not accepted the award or whose claim has not been considered, and where a dispute exists as to the person to whom compensation is payable, squarely falls within Section 64 and is entitled to reference to the Competent Authority.
(Paras 15, 18)

Dispute as to apportionment — Section 76

Where dispute arises regarding the persons to whom compensation is payable or its apportionment, the Collector must refer such dispute to the Authority and cannot decide the same.
(Paras 15–16)

Land Acquisition Officer — Limits of authority

The Land Acquisition Officer cannot decide questions of title, validity of exchange deeds, oral partitions, or entitlement of heirs; such adjudication is beyond jurisdiction and vitiates the proceedings.
(Paras 16–17)

Writ jurisdiction — Directions to statutory authority

A direction to “consider claims in accordance with law” obliges the authority to act strictly within statutory limits. Such direction does not authorise assumption of jurisdiction barred by statute.
(Paras 14–17)

Heirs’ entitlement — Participation in earlier proceedings

Claims of legal heirs cannot be rejected merely on the ground of alleged delay or non-participation when the record discloses continuous assertion of rights through writ proceedings and civil suits.
(Paras 12–13)

Writ Appeal — Scope — Findings of fact

Observations made by the Single Judge or the Appellate Court shall not bind or prejudice the Competent Authority while adjudicating disputes referred under Section 64 of Act 30 of 2013.
(Para 20, Direction No.4)

---

ANALYSIS (PARA-WISE SYNTHESIS)

1. Background and competing claims (Paras 2–6):
   The property originally belonged to late Sri K. Radha Krishna Reddy. While exchange deeds were executed in favour of the sons, the daughters continuously asserted their entitlement, including through impleadment in earlier writ proceedings and filing of O.S.No.140 of 2013.

2. Acquisition proceedings and earlier writ directions (Paras 6, 14):
   In W.P.No.31316 of 2023, the Acquisition Officer was directed only to consider the claims and pass orders strictly in accordance with law, after hearing all interested parties.

3. Error committed by Acquisition Officer (Paras 7, 16):
   Instead of referring the disputed claims to the Competent Authority, the Acquisition Officer proceeded to adjudicate title, validity of exchange deeds, and entitlement, thereby acting beyond jurisdiction.

4. Statutory scheme under Act 30 of 2013 (Paras 15–16):
   Sections 63, 64 and 76 vest exclusive jurisdiction in the Competent Authority for deciding disputes regarding title, entitlement and apportionment of compensation. The Acquisition Officer is statutorily barred from undertaking such adjudication.

5. Applicability of Section 64 (Paras 15, 18):
   As the daughters were excluded from compensation determination and had not accepted the award, their case squarely attracted Section 64, mandating reference.

6. Single Judge’s order upheld with safeguards (Paras 17, 20):
   The Division Bench affirmed the Single Judge’s direction for reference, while clarifying that no observations in the writ proceedings would bind the Competent Authority.

---

RATIO DECIDENDI

1. Under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, disputes relating to title, entitlement and apportionment of compensation cannot be decided by the Land Acquisition Officer and must be referred to the Competent Authority under Sections 64 and 76.

2. A direction to consider claims “in accordance with law” does not empower the Acquisition Officer to assume jurisdiction expressly barred by statute.

3. Any adjudication by the Acquisition Officer on disputed questions of title or entitlement is without jurisdiction and liable to be set aside.

4. While affirming such reference, the Competent Authority must decide the dispute independently, uninfluenced by observations of the writ court or appellate court.