Rejection of Section 18 applications for delay, without addressing non-service of Section 12(2) notice, is unsustainable.

The petitioners challenged orders rejecting their applications under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, concerning land acquired for the Dharoi, Vatrak and other schemes.

The award under Section 11(1) was passed on 29 June 2005. The petitioners contended that they had never been served the mandatory notice under Section 12(2) or a certified copy of the award. They claimed to have filed applications objecting to the award on 29 June 2006, but those applications were allegedly misplaced and were taken up only after approximately eleven years.

Show-cause notices were issued in 2017 and 2018 proposing rejection on the ground of delay, followed by rejection orders dated 18 July 2018.

The petitioners’ explanations and their assertion regarding non-service of the Section 12(2) notice were allegedly not addressed in the impugned orders.

In its affidavit, the competent authority admitted that no record of service of the Section 12(2) notice could be found.

Whether the rejection of the petitioners’ applications under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 solely on the ground of delay, without addressing their explanation for delay, was legally sustainable

Whether the impugned orders were vitiated by violation of natural justice and failure to record reasons, particularly when the petitioners disputed service of the mandatory notice under Section 12(2)

Whether the applications filed by the petitioners in 2006 were required to be forwarded to the competent civil court for a reference under Section 18

The Court applied Section 11(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, concerning the making of the land acquisition award, and Section 12(2), which requires intimation of the award to interested persons and is relevant to the computation of limitation for seeking a reference.

Section 18 provides the mechanism for referring objections to the measurement, amount of compensation, persons to whom it is payable or apportionment of compensation to the competent civil court.

The Court further applied the principles of natural justice and the duty of an administrative or quasi-judicial authority to pass a reasoned and non-arbitrary order.

An authority deciding limitation or delay must consider the affected party’s specific explanation and material contentions; an order merely stating that an application is delayed, without reasons or consideration of the objections, is legally unsustainable.

The Court found that the impugned orders did not disclose any reasons beyond the bare conclusion that the Section 18 applications were delayed.

They failed to consider the petitioners’ specific explanation that their applications had been filed in 2006 but were misplaced, as well as their contention that no Section 12(2) notice or certified copy of the award had been served.

This failure breached the requirement of a reasoned decision and the principles of natural justice.

The Court also relied on the authority’s admission that no record of service of the Section 12(2) notice was available, which substantially supported the petitioners’ case regarding non-service of the statutory intimation.

Consequently, the rejection orders could not stand, and the applications had to be processed for consideration by the competent civil court under Section 18.

The Deputy Collector/Special Land Acquisition Officer was directed to forward those applications to the competent civil court for registration and adjudication on merits under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.

The forwarding process was directed to be completed within two weeks from receipt of the Court’s order.

The petition was accordingly allowed, with no order as to costs.