LAC cannot summarily reject reference petitions but must forward them for adjudication on limitation and merits.

The Petitioner was the owner of 19 biswas of land in Village Nagli Sakrawati, Delhi, which was acquired by the Respondent under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 ("the Act") via notifications dated April 7, 2006 (Section 4) and April 4, 2007 (Section 6)

An award was passed on March 30, 2009, and the Petitioner received compensation on November 17, 2011

The Petitioner filed a reference petition under Section 18 of the Act for enhancement on December 19, 2011

By an order dated January 8, 2018, the LAC/ADM (South West) rejected this reference petition as barred by time

The Petitioner challenged this rejection, contending that notices under Section 12(2) were sent to an incorrect address (“RZ-73, Inder Puri” instead of “RA-53, Inderpuri”), preventing him from knowing the award’s details until compensation was received

1. Whether the Land Acquisition Collector (LAC) was justified in rejecting the reference petition under Section 18 as time-barred instead of forwarding it to the District Judge

2. Whether the limitation period for filing a reference petition is triggered if the statutory notice under Section 12(2) is sent to an incorrect address

Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, which provides the right to seek enhancement of compensation, and Section 12(2), which mandates giving immediate notice of the award to interested persons

Procedural principle established in Chet Singh Rana v. Union of India (W.P.(C) 7817/2017), which held that a reference petition, being a vital opportunity for a landowner to establish a case for higher compensation, should generally be forwarded to the competent District Judge, who remains the appropriate authority to decide the issue of limitation

The Court observed that while the award was passed in 2009, there was a clear discrepancy in the communication process. Record evidence indicated that the Respondent sent Section 12(2) and Sections 9 & 10 notices to "RZ-73, Inder Puri," whereas the impugned order itself recorded the Petitioner’s correct address as "RA-53, Inderpuri"

Applying the precedent in Chet Singh Rana, the Court reasoned that the LAC should not summarily dismiss the reference petition on the grounds of limitation. Instead, the statutory scheme suggests that the reference should be forwarded to the District Court, leaving the legal question of limitation open for the judicial officer to determine after considering if the Petitioner was served as per law

The writ petition was allowed, and all rights and contentions of the parties, including the defense of limitation, were left open for the Reference Court's determination