Ravinder Kumar vs Union Of India & Anr.

$~5
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
th
Date of decision: 29 May, 2026
st
Uploaded on: 1 June, 2026
+ W.P.(C) 8404/2024
RAVINDER KUMAR .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Praveen Mishra, Adv.
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ANR. .....Respondents
Through: Mr Sanjay Kumar Pathak standing
Counsel with Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha,
Mr. Mohd Sueb Akhtar, Mrs. Joohu
Kumari, Mr. Kushagra Dixit Advs.
Mr. Mukesh Gupta, standing counsel
for MCD, Ms. Madhu Yadav, Ms.
Sneha Roy, Ms. Gurleen Kaur Sran,
Mr. Shishav Shukla, Advocates
CORAM:
JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH
JUSTICE MADHU JAIN
Prathiba M. Singh, J. (Oral)
1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.
nd
2. The present petition challenges the impugned order dated 22
February, 2024 passed by the LAC, District South West, Delhi, by which the
application filed by the Petitioner dated 30th March 2012 under Section 18 of
the Land Acquisition Act has been rejected on the ground of delay.
th
3. The background of the case is that on 4 February, 2010, a notification
was issued u/s 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 by the Land Acquisition
Collector, South West, for acquisition of property bearing khasra no. 141(old
lal dora) admeasuring 140 sq. yds. (hereinafter, ‘the acquired land’) situated
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:RENUKA
NEGI
Signing Date:01.06.2026
18:17:30
W.P.(C) 8404/2024 Page 1 of 5

in the revenue estate of urbanized village Bijwasan, Delhi.
th
4. Thereafter, on 11 January, 2011, a declaration u/s 6 of Land
Acquisition Act, 1894 was issued by the LAC.
5. The Petitioner, in the capacity of the owner of 1/2 part of the acquired
land had filed an application under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act,
th
1894 on 30 March, 2012. With respect to this application, the first reminder
th
was sent by the Petitioner to LAC on 29 December, 2022 and the second
th
reminder was sent on 25 May, 2023.
nd
6. Finally, on 22 February, 2024, LAC passed the impugned roder,
dismissing the application filed by Petitioner u/s 18 of the Land Acquisition
Act, 1894. Relevant portion of the impugned order dated 22nd February,
2024 reads as under:
“7. In the light of the above and pursuant to the
relevant provisions of the Act, I hereby dismiss the
applications for reference to the Competent court a/
s 18 of the Act, submitted by the plaintiffs on the
grounds of being time barred.”
7. As can be seen from the above order, the applications have been
dismissed by the LAC itself, only on the ground of delay. The issue pertaining
to delay in filing an application under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act
is fully covered by a recent decision of this Court in W.P.(C) 2686/2018 , titled
‘Anand Khanna v. Union of India’ , wherein this Court vide order dated 23rd
April, 2026 has held as under:
“13. Reliance has also been placed by the
Petitioner on a similar case in W.P.(C) 7817/2017
titled Chet Singh Rana v. Union of India where the
Division Bench of this Court, vide order dated 5th
September, 2017, has held that in any event, the
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:RENUKA
NEGI
Signing Date:01.06.2026
18:17:30
W.P.(C) 8404/2024 Page 2 of 5

Petitioner ought to be forwarded to the concerned
District Judge, who would also decide the issue of
limitation u/s 18 of the Act. The said order dated 5th
September, 2017 is extracted below:
“Issue notice. Sh. Yeeshu Jain, Advocate
accepts notice. The limited relief claimed
in this petition under Article 226 of the
Constitution is to set-aside an order of the
respondent/LAC dated 31.01.2017,
declining to forward the reference under
Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act,
1894 [hereafter “the 1894 Act”]. The
Award in this case was made on
01.02.2012. The petitioner in this case
requested for a reference on 15.01.2014.
It was stated that the petitioner received
the compensation on 28.11.2014 and he
was in the dark till the impugned order, as
to whether the reference had been
forwarded to the competent court. The
LAC in the impugned order expressed the
opinion that the application under Section
18 of the 1894 Act is time-barred and that
in so saying he relied upon the provisions
of Section 12(2) of the 1894 Act.
The respondent’s counsel argued that the
impugned order should not be interfered
with given the mandate of the law and the
fact that the LAC was competent to decide
and pronounce upon the issue of
limitation. It is also urged that the
compensation under Sections 30/31 of the
1894 Act was rendered on 30.10.2013. We
have heard learned counsel for the
parties. Without expressing any opinion
on the merits of the issue of limitation, the
Court is of the view that the reference
petition – which is the only opportunity
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:RENUKA
NEGI
Signing Date:01.06.2026
18:17:30
W.P.(C) 8404/2024 Page 3 of 5

provided by law to a land owner to
establish his case for higher
compensation by leading evidence,
should be forwarded under Section 18 of
the 1894 Act. At the same time, it is open
to the reference Court to decide the issue
of limitation, if so raised by the
respondent, in opposition to the
maintainability .
In view of the above, the order dated
31.01.2017 is set-aside. The LAC shall
also forward the reference to the
competent court within six weeks. All
questions of law, including the issue of
limitation are kept open. The writ petition
is allowed in the above terms.”
14. After having perused the record, it becomes
clear that upon the receipt of the compensation, the
Petitioner sought enhancement thereof by filing the
reference petition u/s 18 of the Act.
15. The same ought not to be dismissed simply in the
manner as it has been done vide the impugned
order.
16. The impugned order is, accordingly, set aside.
17. The reference petition filed by the Petitioner
dated 19th December, 2011 shall now be sent to the
concerned ld. District Judge for deciding the same,
including the issue of limitation, in accordance
with law.
18. The petition is disposed of in the above terms.
Pending applications, if any, are also disposed of.”
8. Following the order dated 23rd April, 2026 in Anand Khanna (Supra),
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:RENUKA
NEGI
Signing Date:01.06.2026
18:17:30
W.P.(C) 8404/2024 Page 4 of 5

this Court passed a similar order in W.P.(C) 5796/2026 titled Sita Ram v.
Union of India, wherein it has been held as under:
“12. Following the order dated 5th September,
2017 in Chet Singh Rana (Supra) and order dated
23rd April, 2026 in Anand Khanna (Supra), this
Court is of the opinion that the applications under
Section 18 and 30-31 deserve to be sent by the LAC
to the appropriate reference Court - albeit with a
note that according to the LAC, the application is
barred by limitation.”
9. As held in the above orders, the LAC cannot itself dismiss the
application on the ground of delay. At best the LAC can send the matter to
the Reference Court, with its opinion that the application is barred.
10. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside. Let the application filed
by the Petitioner under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition be sent by the LAC
to the appropriate reference Court within a period of one month with a note
that according to the LAC, the application is barred by limitation.
11. The petition along with pending application(s), if any, is disposed of in
these terms.
PRATHIBA M. SINGH
JUDGE
MADHU JAIN
JUDGE
MAY 29, 2026/ prg/ss
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:RENUKA
NEGI
Signing Date:01.06.2026
18:17:30
W.P.(C) 8404/2024 Page 5 of 5