Land Acquisition – Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (Act 30 of 2013) – Sections 63, 64 and 76 – Dispute as to title and apportionment – Jurisdiction of Land Acquisition Officer – Duty to refer dispute to Competent Authority – Findings on title by Acquisition Officer impermissible – Writ Appeal disposed with directions

Land Acquisition – Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (Act 30 of 2013) – Sections 63, 64 and 76 – Dispute as to title and apportionment – Jurisdiction of Land Acquisition Officer – Duty to refer dispute to Competent Authority – Findings on title by Acquisition Officer impermissible – Writ Appeal disposed with directions

Held:
Where rival claims and disputed questions of title arise in land acquisition proceedings, the Land Acquisition Officer has no jurisdiction to adjudicate upon such disputes. In terms of Sections 63, 64 and 76 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, such disputes must be referred to the Competent Authority constituted under the Act. Any adjudication on title by the Acquisition Officer is beyond jurisdiction and liable to be set aside. While affirming the order of the learned Single Judge directing reference, the appellate court may clarify that the Competent Authority shall decide the matter uninfluenced by any observations made by the High Court.
(Paras 15–20)

---

ANALYSIS OF FACTS AND LAW

I. Background and Genesis of the Dispute

Late Sri K. Radha Krishna Reddy owned about 317 Ankanams of land at Venkatrampuram, Nellore. After partial alienation by his sons, the remaining land was sought to be acquired for construction of an under-bridge. Instead of monetary compensation, an exchange of land was proposed and partially accepted, but later modified by Government orders, giving rise to prolonged litigation.
(Paras 2–3)

The daughters of late Sri K. Radha Krishna Reddy asserted their share at various stages, including impleadment in earlier writ proceedings and by filing O.S.No.140 of 2013, seeking partition.
(Paras 2, 4, 13)

---

II. Cancellation of Exchange and Direction for Acquisition

Subsequently, exchange deeds were cancelled, and by a judgment dated 04.03.2021, the Municipal Corporation was directed to acquire the original land under Act 30 of 2013. The daughters were not parties to those writ petitions.
(Para 5)

---

III. Acquisition Proceedings and Competing Claims

During acquisition proceedings, notices under Section 21(1) of Act 30 of 2013 were issued. The daughters approached the High Court contending that they were not heard. The Court directed the Acquisition Officer to consider their claims and pass orders in accordance with law.
(Para 6)

The Acquisition Officer, however, rejected the daughters’ claims on grounds of delay and non-challenge to exchange deeds, thereby deciding questions of title and entitlement.
(Para 7)

---

IV. Order of the Learned Single Judge

The learned Single Judge, in W.P.No.20569 of 2024, set aside the Acquisition Officer’s order and directed reference of the dispute to the Competent Authority under Sections 64 or 76 of Act 30 of 2013.
(Para 8)

---

V. Issues in the Writ Appeal

The sons (appellants) contended that:

• The learned Single Judge had recorded findings of fact that could prejudice further proceedings;

• The Acquisition Officer acted within jurisdiction pursuant to earlier directions; and

• Section 76 was inapplicable.
  (Paras 9–10)

The daughters contended that once disputed claims of title arose, the Acquisition Officer was bound to make a reference, as he lacked jurisdiction to decide such disputes.
(Paras 11–12)

---

VI. Interpretation of Sections 63, 64 and 76 of Act 30 of 2013

The Division Bench analysed Sections 63, 64 and 76, holding that:

• Section 63 bars civil courts and vests exclusive jurisdiction in the Competent Authority to decide claims;

• Section 64 mandates reference when a person interested disputes entitlement or apportionment;

• Section 76 applies to disputes as to apportionment or persons entitled to compensation.

The Acquisition Officer, upon noticing contested claims, ought to have made a reference, instead of adjudicating title himself.
(Paras 15–17)

---

VII. Scope of Appellate Interference

The Division Bench affirmed the conclusion of the learned Single Judge but clarified that:

• The Competent Authority must decide the dispute independently,

• It shall not be influenced by any observations made either by the learned Single Judge or by the Division Bench.
  (Paras 19–20)

---

RATIO DECIDENDI

1. In land acquisition proceedings under Act 30 of 2013, the Land Acquisition Officer has no jurisdiction to adjudicate disputed questions of title or entitlement; such disputes must be referred to the Competent Authority under Sections 64 or 76.

2. Section 63 of Act 30 of 2013 bars adjudication of such disputes by authorities other than the Competent Authority, save for constitutional courts.

3. Any determination of title by the Acquisition Officer is beyond jurisdiction and liable to be set aside.

4. While directing reference, the High Court may safeguard the adjudicatory independence of the Competent Authority by clarifying that it shall not be bound by prior observations.