Claims for omitted assets in land-acquisition awards may be pursued through a Section 64 reference.

The petitioners alleged that the respondents had taken possession of their lands without following an acquisition process.

A Joint Measurement Committee (JMC) was constituted to measure the lands and identify structures and borewells.

The petitioners contended that, although the JMC report recorded borewells, a check dam and standing trees, these were not properly considered when the Special Land Acquisition Officer passed the award on 31 August 2021.

They sought a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to consider their representation for compensation.

1. Whether the Court could issue a writ of mandamus requiring consideration of compensation for the disputed borewell, check dam and other assets, where their existence or valuation required factual determination?

2. Whether the petitioners should instead be permitted to seek a reference under Section 64(1) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013?

Section 64(1) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 provides an alternative reference remedy in compensation disputes.

Where deciding a claim would require factual determination or effectively seek enhancement of compensation, the Court may decline to issue a writ of mandamus and leave the claimant to pursue that statutory remedy.

The Court relied on the coordinate Bench’s decision in W.P. No. 106375 of 2025 (LA-RES), disposed of on 24 September 2025, which applied this approach to a dispute concerning trees omitted from an award.

The JMC report and the award-related findings differed on whether the claimed assets were present and eligible for valuation.

Resolving that dispute would require factual determination, and directing compensation through mandamus could amount to enhancement of the award.

Following the approach adopted in the coordinate Bench decision, the Court therefore considered a Section 64(1) reference to be the appropriate remedy rather than deciding the disputed compensation claims in the writ petition.

It directed the respondents to consider and order the reference within 30 days and to report compliance to the Court within the following week.