Collector must pragmatically exercise discretion to condone delay in land acquisition enhancement references.

The petitioners are farmers whose lands were acquired for the "Lower Panzara (Akkalpada) Medium Project"

Following the declaration of awards, the authorities issued notices 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 sought enhancement of compensation by filing Reference applications under Section 64 of the Act of 2013.

However, these applications were filed with delays ranging from 150 to 346 days beyond the initial six-week limitation period.

The petitioners attributed the delay to the COVID-19 pandemic, administrative hurdles in obtaining certified copies, and their socio-economic status as farmers from an Adiwasi region.

On January 31, 2024, the Deputy Collector, Land Acquisition (General), Dhule, rejected the applications for condonation of delay, prompting these Writ Petitions.

1. Whether the District Collector/Deputy Collector exercised discretion mindfully under the second proviso to Section 64(2) of the Act of 2013 while refusing to condone the delay

2. Whether the circumstances surrounding the COVID-19 pandemic and the petitioners’ status as farmers constituted "sufficient cause" for a delay that remained within the one-year statutory grace period

Section 64 of the Act of 2013, which stipulates that the Collector may entertain a reference application after the initial expiry of six weeks, provided it is within a further period of one year and "sufficient cause" is shown for the delay.

Land acquisition enhancement provisions constitute "benevolent legislation" intended to ensure just compensation.

The Supreme Court decision 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 fair compensation for their divested property.

The Court observed that "sufficient cause" is a relative concept that must be adjudicated pragmatically rather than mechanically.

It held that the Collector, acting as a "guardian" of farmers' interests, failed to consider the "after-burns" of the COVID-19 pandemic, which disrupted communication and financial stability in rural regions.

The Court emphasized that since the petitioners filed their applications within the additional one-year window permitted by the statute, and the delay was not inordinate, a technical rejection would defeat the substantive right to equal compensation under Article 14.

To balance the interests of the State, the Court noted that any potential loss to the public exchequer caused by the delay could be mitigated by denying interest to the claimants for the period of the delay.

The Court condoned the delays in filing the Reference applications and directed the Deputy Collector to process the applications on their merits.

However, it held that in the event of any enhancement, the petitioners shall not be entitled to interest for the period from the last date of the original limitation until the date of their appearance before the Authority pursuant to this order.

The petitioners were directed to appear before the Authority on April 27, 2026.