01Facts
The petitioner’s mother, the owner of commercial properties acquired for construction of a Grade Separator at Rani Jhansi Road, filed a reference petition under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, on 12 July 2012.
pp. 1–2 · ¶ 2–6The petition was not transmitted by the Land Acquisition Collector (LAC) to the Reference Court. After his mother’s death on 22 January 2026, the petitioner learned that the reference remained unprocessed and sought a direction for its transmission.
pp. 1–2 · ¶ 2–6The MCD opposed the writ petition on the ground of delay and laches, relying on Jagdish & Ors. v. Land Acquisition Collector/ADM, 2005 (83) DRJ 425 (DB).
p. 2 · ¶ 702Issues
i.1. Whether the petitioner’s claim for transmission of the Section 18 reference was barred by delay and laches.
pp. 2–4 · ¶ 7–9ii.2. Whether the LAC should be directed to transmit the reference petition to the Reference Court, and whether the authenticity of its acknowledgment should be verified.
pp. 4–5 · ¶ 10–1203Law Applied
Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, provides for a claimant to seek a reference to the competent court concerning an award.
pp. 2–4 · ¶ 8–9The High Court’s extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 is subject to the equitable doctrine of delay and laches; as stated in Jagdish, unexplained prolonged inaction may bar relief, and the principle that “delay defeats equity” applies to writ proceedings. Municipal Council, Ahmednagar v. Shah Hyder Beig, (2000) 2 SCC 48, was cited in Jagdish for applying delay and laches to land-acquisition claims.
pp. 2–4 · ¶ 8–9 · p. 4 · ¶ 9Provisions in the judgment · 1
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 Section 18
04Reasoning
The Court distinguished Jagdish, where the Section 18 application lacked departmental acknowledgment and the claimant’s alleged follow-up efforts were unsupported. Here, the application bore a LAC office stamp and acknowledgment indicating receipt on 12 July 2012.
pp. 4–5 · ¶ 10–12On that prima facie basis, the Court considered the case distinguishable and directed transmission, while requiring the LAC to verify the authenticity of the seal, diary number and related details. The Court left the effect of the petitioner’s 14-year delay on any claim to interest for the Reference Court to consider.
pp. 4–5 · ¶ 10–12 · p. 5 · ¶ 1305Holding
The Court disposed of the petition by directing the LAC to send the Section 18 reference to the concerned District Judge within two months and to confirm the authenticity of the acknowledgment appearing on the application.
p. 5 · ¶ 11–14If compensation is awarded, the Reference Court is to consider whether the petitioner is entitled to interest for the period during which he did not approach the Court.
p. 5 · ¶ 13Original Court PDF
Sidharth KhuranavsUnion Of India & Anr.
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in
