COVID-19 limitation exclusion requires authorities to entertain delayed Section 64 land-acquisition references.

The petitioners’ lands at Mouje Shinay, Taluka Gandhidham, District Kutch, were acquired for construction of a distributor from the Shinay Branch Canal of the Narmada Project.

The preliminary notification under Section 11(1) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (“2013 Act”) was published on 27 March 2020, followed by publication in a local newspaper on 7 April 2020.

The competent authority subsequently passed the award on 25 March 2021 in the absence of the petitioners and their advocate.

Notices communicating the award were served on the petitioners on 13 April 2021.

The petitioners thereafter filed applications under Section 64 of the 2013 Act seeking reference for enhancement of compensation, on 28/30 July 2021.

The competent authority rejected the applications on 18 August 2021 as time-barred.

The petitioners challenged the rejection under Articles 226 and 300A of the Constitution, contending that the delay occurred during the COVID-19 pandemic and was protected by the Supreme Court’s orders excluding the period from 15 March 2020 to 28 February 2022 for limitation purposes.

They also relied on the proviso to Section 64, which permits delayed applications to be entertained within a further period of one year upon sufficient cause being shown.

Whether the petitioners’ applications for reference under Section 64 of the 2013 Act were liable to be rejected as barred by limitation, notwithstanding the Supreme Court’s COVID-19 limitation-extension orders?

Whether the competent authority was required to consider the discretion available under the proviso to Section 64 to entertain a delayed reference upon sufficient cause being shown?

Whether the unexplained delay in filing the writ petitions from 18 August 2021 to 7 November 2023 disentitled the petitioners from relief under Article 226 of the Constitution?

The Court applied Section 64 of the 2013 Act, under which an interested person disputing an award may seek a reference on issues including measurement, compensation, entitlement, rehabilitation and resettlement, or apportionment.

The prescribed period is six weeks from the relevant award or notice, or six months from the Collector’s award, whichever expires earlier; however, the proviso empowers the Collector to entertain the application within a further period of one year if sufficient cause for the delay is established.

The Court also relied on the Supreme Court’s directions in In Re: Cognizance for Extension of Limitation, Miscellaneous Application No. 21 of 2022 in Suo Motu Writ Petition (Civil) No. 3 of 2020, by which the period from 15 March 2020 to 28 February 2022 was excluded while computing limitation under general and special laws, including periods subject to statutory condonation.

The Court exercised its jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 300A of the Constitution to correct the competent authority’s refusal to entertain the statutory references.

The Court held that the delay in filing the Section 64 references was less than twenty days when calculated from service of the award notice.

The relevant period fell within the COVID-19 period excluded by the Supreme Court’s binding limitation directions.

Further, Section 64 itself contained a specific discretion to condone delay within one additional year where sufficient cause was shown.

The petitioners had attributed the delay to the extraordinary pandemic circumstances and had acted shortly after receiving knowledge of the award.

Accordingly, the competent authority erred in rejecting the references solely on limitation without considering the statutory proviso and the Supreme Court’s exclusion directions.

However, the Court distinguished the delay in filing the references from the substantially later delay in approaching the High Court.

Although the petitioners failed to satisfactorily explain the delay between the rejection order dated 18 August 2021 and the institution of the writ petitions on 7 November 2023, the Court considered that this delay should affect only consequential monetary relief and not extinguish the petitioners’ statutory right to have their references adjudicated.

It quashed and set aside the orders dated 18 August 2021 rejecting the petitioners’ Section 64 applications on limitation.

Respondent No. 2 was directed to entertain the applications and forthwith forward them to the competent Reference Court for adjudication on merits, after affording hearing to all concerned parties.

The petitioners were held entitled to have their references considered on merits, but were denied interest and other consequential monetary benefits for the period attributable to their delay in approaching the High Court.

The Rule was made absolute accordingly.