Collector must pragmatically condone delay under Section 64 RFCTLARR Act to protect landowners' substantive compensation rights.

The petitioners are farmers from Mehergaon, Dhule, whose lands were acquired for the “Lower Panzara (Akkalpada) Medium Project”

Following the declaration of awards, notices were issued to the petitioners under Section 23 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 ("the Act of 2013")

The petitioners filed reference applications for enhancement of compensation under Section 64 of the Act along with applications for condonation of delay, which was approximately 17 to 18 days

They cited COVID-19 pandemic restrictions, lack of legal knowledge, and poor financial conditions as reasons for the delay

On March 19, 2024, the Deputy Collector, Land Acquisition (General), Dhule, rejected the applications, refusing to condone the delay

The petitioners challenged these orders via Writ Petitions

1. Whether the Deputy Collector erred in failing to exercise discretion under the last proviso to Section 64 of the Act of 2013 to condone a marginal delay in filing reference applications

2. Whether the reasons provided by the petitioners—including post-pandemic hardships and socio-economic status—constituted "sufficient cause" for condonation of delay under the Act

Section 64 of the Act of 2013, which stipulates the timeline for filing reference applications and includes a proviso empowering the Collector to entertain applications after the expiry of the prescribed period (within a further period of one year) if "sufficient cause" is shown

The court also relied on the principle that the Act is a "benevolent legislation" designed to protect land losers

Supreme Court precedent in Suresh Kumar and ors. Vs. State of Haryana (2025 INSC 550), which established that delay should not be a reason to deny land losers just compensation, provided that interest for the delayed period may be waived

The court observed that the delay in filing the references was minimal (17–18 days) and well within the one-year discretionary window provided to the Collector under Section 64

The court noted that "satisfaction on sufficient cause" is a relative concept and criticized the Deputy Collector for adopting a mechanical approach

It emphasized that land acquisition references should not be treated as "adversary litigation," particularly as farmers lose their sole livelihood

The court took judicial notice of the lingering financial and communicative "after-burns" of the COVID-19 pandemic on rural and Adiwasi populations, which justified the delay in approaching legal counsel

Following the Supreme Court’s view, the court held that technicalities of delay should not defeat substantive rights to fair compensation, provided the public exchequer is protected by excluding interest for the period of delay

The court condoned the delays in filing the Section 64 references and directed the Deputy Collector to process the applications in accordance with the law

The petitioners were ordered to appear before the Authority by April 27, 2026

The court held that, in the event of enhancement, the petitioners shall not be entitled to interest from the last date of limitation until the date of their appearance before the Authority