Land Acquisition Collector cannot reject Section 18 reference as time-barred; issue of limitation must be decided by reference court.

The Petitioner, Mr. Sita Ram, purchased 300 sq. yards of land in Nangli Sakrawati, Delhi, in 2005

The land was acquired by the Respondent for the "Planned Development of Delhi" via a Section 4 notification dated 7th April 2006, culminating in Award No. 13/2008-19/SW on 30th March 2009

The Petitioner filed representations under Sections 18 (for enhancement of compensation) and 30-31 (for apportionment/release of payment) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894

On 20th December 2017, the Land Acquisition Collector (LAC) rejected the Section 18 application on the grounds that it was barred by limitation

The Petitioner approached the High Court seeking to set aside this rejection and to compel the LAC to forward the references to the civil court

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 grounds of limitation, or if such adjudication must be performed by the Reference Court.

2. Whether the LAC should be directed to forward the petitioner’s applications under Sections 18 and 30-31 to the appropriate Civil Court despite objections regarding limitation.

The Court primarily applied Sections 18, 30, and 31 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, which govern the reference to court and payment/apportionment of compensation

Division Bench precedents of Chet Singh Rana v. Union of India (W.P.(C) 7817/2017), which held that the LAC must forward a reference even if it appears time-barred, as the Reference Court is the competent authority to decide the issue of limitation

Anand Khanna v. Union of India (W.P.(C) 2686/2018), which reiterated that reference petitions should not be dismissed at the LAC stage

The Court observed that the LAC had rejected the Petitioner’s Section 18 application solely on the basis of it being time-barred

Citing the established legal principle from Chet Singh Rana, the Court reasoned that the reference petition is the primary legal mechanism for a landowner to seek higher compensation and should not be summarily blocked by the LAC

The Court clarified that while the LAC must forward the reference, it may do so with a note indicating its objection regarding limitation. This preserves the Landmaster's right to lead evidence while allowing the Reference Court to decide the maintainability of the claim as a preliminary legal issue

The Court set aside the impugned order dated 20th December 2017 and directed the LAC to forward the applications under Sections 18 and 30-31 to the appropriate Reference Court within one month

The Reference Court was directed to proceed in accordance with law, keeping the issue of limitation open for adjudication

The writ petition was disposed of without any findings on the merits of the compensation claim