01Facts
The petitioners are farmers from Mehergaon, Dhule, whose lands were acquired for the “Lower Panzara (Akkalpada) Medium Project”
p. 7Following 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")
p. 7The 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
p. 7, 11They cited COVID-19 pandemic restrictions, lack of legal knowledge, and poor financial conditions as reasons for the delay
p. 8On March 19, 2024, the Deputy Collector, Land Acquisition (General), Dhule, rejected the applications, refusing to condone the delay
p. 8The petitioners challenged these orders via Writ Petitions
p. 602Issues
i.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
p. 6, 14ii.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
p. 14, 1503Law Applied
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
pp. 9-10The court also relied on the principle that the Act is a "benevolent legislation" designed to protect land losers
p. 14Supreme 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
pp. 15-16Provisions in the judgment · 6 · Linked ones open on LawLens
Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 Section 20Section 21Section 23Section 27Section 31Section 64
04Reasoning
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
p. 11The court noted that "satisfaction on sufficient cause" is a relative concept and criticized the Deputy Collector for adopting a mechanical approach
p. 14It emphasized that land acquisition references should not be treated as "adversary litigation," particularly as farmers lose their sole livelihood
p. 13The 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
p. 15Following 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
pp. 16-1705Holding
The High Court allowed the Writ Petitions and quashed the Deputy Collector’s orders dated March 19, 2024
p. 17The court condoned the delays in filing the Section 64 references and directed the Deputy Collector to process the applications in accordance with the law
p. 17The petitioners were ordered to appear before the Authority by April 27, 2026
p. 17The 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
p. 18Original Court PDF
Bhikubai Sahebrao Patil And AnothervsThe State Of Maharashtra Through District Collector And Others
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in
