LAC Must Forward Reference Petitions to Reference Court Regardless of Potential Limitation Issues

The Petitioners are owners of land in Village Nagli Sakrawati, Delhi, which was acquired by the Respondent for public purpose via notifications under Section 4 (7th April 2006) and Section 6 (4th April 2007) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894

An award (No. 13/2008-09/SW) was passed on 30th March 2009

Petitioners received compensation in November 2011 and subsequently filed a reference petition under Section 18 of the Act on 19th December 2011

The Land Acquisition Collector (LAC) rejected the reference petitions via orders dated 12th and 13th September 2017 on the grounds that they were barred by limitation under Section 18(2)(b)

The Petitioners challenged these orders, alleging the Section 12(2) notice was sent to the wrong address and that the LAC lacked the authority to dismiss the reference on limitation

1. Whether the Land Acquisition Collector (LAC) can summarily reject a reference petition under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, on the grounds of limitation instead of forwarding it to the District Judge.

2. Whether the reference petition filed by the Petitioners was barred by time under Section 18(2)(b) of the Act.

The Court applied Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, which provides the right to a landholder to seek a reference for enhancement of compensation

The Court specifically examined Section 18(2)(b) regarding the limitation period for filing such applications

The Court relied on the precedent established by the Division Bench in Chet Singh Rana v. Union of India (W.P.(C) 7817/2017), which held that even if a petition is allegedly time-barred, the LAC ought to forward the reference to the competent District Judge, who maintains the jurisdiction to decide the issue of limitation

The Court observed that while the Respondent argued the petition was filed beyond the six-month period prescribed under Section 18(2)(b), no counter-affidavit was filed to rebut the Petitioners' claim that they were served notice at the wrong address

Following the principle laid down in Chet Singh Rana, the Court reasoned that a reference petition is the primary legal opportunity for a landowner to lead evidence for higher compensation

Therefore, the LAC should not exercise judicial or quasi-judicial finality by dismissing the petition; rather, it must forward the matter to the Reference Court (District Judge)

The Reference Court is the appropriate forum to adjudicate both the merits and the threshold issue of limitation after considering evidence regarding the service of notice and the date of knowledge of the award

It held that the LAC erred in dismissing the reference petitions. The Court directed the LAC to forward the Petitioners' reference petition dated 19th December 2011 to the concerned District Judge

The District Judge was mandated to decide all issues, including the question of limitation, in accordance with law, while keeping all rights and contentions of the parties open