Land Acquisition Collectors Must Promptly Forward Timely Section 64 Reference Applications to the Reference Court

The Petitioner claimed ownership of land measuring 1 bigha comprised in Khasra Nos. 19//12 min and 19//13 min, Village Pochanpur, New Delhi, purchased on 12 May 1986. The land was notified for acquisition under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, for the Dwarka Phase-II project on 13 December 2000, and Award No. 30/2002-03 was passed on 9 December 2002.

In an earlier writ petition, this Court declared the acquisition lapsed because physical possession had been taken but compensation had not been paid, and the award was more than five years old when the 2013 Act commenced.

The Supreme Court subsequently disposed of the DDA’s challenge on 8 January 2025, directing transfer of deposited compensation to the Reference Court and permitting landowners to claim further enhancement within 30 days.

The Petitioner filed an application under Section 64 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 on 3 February 2025, but the Land Acquisition Collector (“LAC”) did not forward it to the Reference Court.

Whether the Petitioner’s reference application dated 3 February 2025 was filed within the period permitted by the Supreme Court’s order dated 8 January 2025 and was therefore required to be forwarded to the Reference Court.

Whether the LAC could delay or withhold forwarding the Petitioner’s application under Section 64 of the 2013 Act to the competent Reference Court.

Section 64 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 provides the statutory mechanism for seeking reference of objections relating to the measurement of land, the amount of compensation, the person to whom it is payable, or its apportionment.

The Supreme Court’s order dated 8 January 2025 directed that compensation be released through the Reference Court and granted landowners liberty to seek further enhancement in accordance with law; it further directed that limitation objections would not be entertained where such claims were made within 30 days from that date.

The Court also applied the binding directions of the Supreme Court concerning verification and release of compensation by the Reference Court.

The Petitioner’s application was filed on 3 February 2025, within 30 days of the Supreme Court’s order dated 8 January 2025, and therefore fell squarely within the period protected by that order.

Since the application was a valid request for reference under Section 64 of the 2013 Act, the LAC had no justification for retaining it instead of transmitting it to the designated Reference Court.

The Court accordingly directed the LAC to forward the application to the Principal District Judge, South-West District, Dwarka Courts, and emphasized that administrative delay in forwarding such applications was impermissible.

The Reference Court was directed to adjudicate the application expeditiously.

The Court further directed the LAC’s office to review all pending reference applications and forward them promptly, warning that the concerned officials could be held personally responsible for delay.