01Facts
The Petitioner owned land in village Bijwasan, Delhi, which was acquired via a Section 4 notification dated February 4, 2010
p. 1 · ¶ 3A declaration under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, was issued on January 11, 2011
p. 2 · ¶ 4On March 30, 2012, the Petitioner filed an application under Section 18 for enhancement of compensation
p. 2 · ¶ 5After several reminders from the Petitioner, the Land Acquisition Collector (LAC) passed an order on February 22, 2024, dismissing the reference application solely on the grounds of it being time-barred
p. 2 · ¶ 602Issues
i.1. Whether the Land Acquisition Collector (LAC) has the authority to dismiss a reference application under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, on the ground of limitation
p. 2 · ¶ 7ii.2. Whether the issue of limitation in such cases ought to be decided by the LAC or by the competent Reference Court
p. 5 · ¶ 903Law Applied
The court applied Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, which provides landholders the right to seek a reference for higher compensation
p. 2 · ¶ 5It relied heavily on the Division Bench precedents of Anand Khanna v. Union of India (W.P.(C) 2686/2018) and Chet Singh Rana v. Union of India (W.P.(C) 7817/2017), which established that the LAC’s role is to forward the reference to the court, and the power to adjudicate on the maintainability or limitation of the application rests with the Reference Court (District Judge), not the LAC
pp. 2-4 · ¶ 7-8Provisions in the judgment · 6
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 Section 4Section 6Section 12Section 18Section 30Section 31
04Reasoning
The Court observed that the LAC had exceeded its jurisdiction by unilaterally dismissing the Petitioner’s application as time-barred
p. 2 · ¶ 7Following the settled legal position in Anand Khanna and Sita Ram v. Union of India, the Court reasoned that a reference petition is the only statutory opportunity for a landowner to lead evidence for higher compensation
pp. 3-4 · ¶ 7Therefore, the LAC is duty-bound to forward the application to the competent District Judge. While the LAC may record its opinion or a "note" stating that the application appears to be barred by limitation, it cannot adjudicate that issue itself
p. 5 · ¶ 9-10The Reference Court retains the authority to decide the issue of limitation if raised by the respondents
p. 4 · ¶ 705Holding
The Court set aside the impugned order dated February 22, 2024
p. 5 · ¶ 10It held that the LAC cannot itself dismiss an application on the ground of delay
p. 5 · ¶ 9The Court directed the LAC to forward the Petitioner’s Section 18 application to the appropriate Reference Court within one month, with a note regarding the LAC's stance on limitation
p. 5 · ¶ 10The Reference Court was directed to decide the matter, including the issue of limitation, in accordance with law
p. 4 · ¶ 7 · p. 5 · ¶ 10-11Original Court PDF
Ravinder KumarvsUnion Of India & Anr.
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in
