After 14 Years, Delhi HC Gives Collector 2 Months To Forward Mother’s Land-Acquisition Compensation Reference To Judge And Verify 2012 Receipt Stamp

In brief

The question

Whether the petition was barred by delay and laches such that the Section 18 reference should not be transmitted to the District Judge.

The court held

The petition was disposed of with a direction to the LAC to send the Section 18 reference to the concerned District Judge within two months and to confirm the authenticity of the acknowledgement particulars on the application.

It also directed

If compensation is awarded, the Reference Court must also consider whether the petitioners are entitled to interest for the period between 12 July 2012 and 5 November 2026, during which they did not approach the Court.

01Facts

The petitioners sought a direction requiring the Land Acquisition Collector (LAC) to transmit a reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, concerning Award No. 12/LAC/N/12-13 and commercial property at Pul Bangash, Delhi, acquired for construction of the Grade Separator at Rani Jhansi Road.

p. 2 · ¶ 2–4

The petitioners’ mother, the property’s owner, had filed the reference application on 12 July 2012; she died on 7 June 2015, and the petitioners stated that they later learned the application had not been processed.

p. 2 · ¶ 5–6

The MCD opposed the petition on grounds of delay and laches, relying on *Jagdish & Ors. v. Land Acquisition Collector/ADM*, 2005 (83) DRJ 425 (DB).

p. 2 · ¶ 7

The reference application in this case appeared, prima facie, to bear the Department’s acknowledgement of receipt dated 12 July 2012.

p. 5 · ¶ 10

02Issues

i.Whether the petition was barred by delay and laches such that the Section 18 reference should not be transmitted to the District Judge.

p. 2 · ¶ 7 · p. 5 · ¶ 8–10

ii.Whether the LAC should be directed to transmit the reference application and verify the authenticity of its acknowledgement.

p. 5 · ¶ 10–12

03Law Applied

Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 provides for a claimant to seek a reference to the court for adjudication.

The High Court’s extraordinary writ jurisdiction is subject to the equitable doctrine of delay and laches: relief may be denied where a claimant has failed to act diligently, as discussed in *Jagdish & Ors. v. Land Acquisition Collector/ADM*, 2005 (83) DRJ 425 (DB).

pp. 2–4 · ¶ 7–9

The judgment also refers to *Municipal Council, Ahmednagar v. Shah Hyder Beig*, (2000) 2 SCC 48, for the principle that substantial delay may defeat relief in land-acquisition matters.

p. 4 · ¶ 9

The Court distinguished *Jagdish* where the Section 18 application lacked departmental acknowledgement, noting that the application here prima facie bore a receipt acknowledgement.

p. 5 · ¶ 10

Provisions in the judgment · 1

Land Acquisition Act, 1894 Section 18

04Reasoning

Although approximately 14 years had elapsed since the application was filed, the Court considered the case distinguishable from *Jagdish*: there, the application lacked acknowledgement, whereas this application prima facie showed departmental receipt on 12 July 2012.

p. 5 · ¶ 9–10

On that basis, the Court directed transmission of the reference, while requiring the LAC to verify the authenticity of the seal, diary number, and other details appearing on the application.

p. 5 · ¶ 11–12

The Court left the consequences of the petitioners’ delay for the Reference Court to consider in relation to any interest awarded.

p. 6 · ¶ 13