The Reference Court Must Verify Whether the SLAO Forwarded the Section 64 Application.

The petitioner’s land in Survey No. 269/1, Ginegera, was acquired.

She stated that, after receiving notice under Section 37(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, she filed an application under Section 64(1) on 27 September 2021 seeking a reference to the Court.

When no reference was made, she approached the District Court.

The court’s order sheet recorded that the reference had been received and directed registration of LAC No. 287/2022, but the matter later proceeded on the basis that no reference had been forwarded by the SLAO.

The petitioner then sought, under Order XVI Rule 7 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), production of her original Section 64 application.

The District Court rejected that application, prompting this writ petition.

1. Whether the District Court was justified in rejecting the petitioner’s application to obtain the Section 64 reference application from the SLAO when the record left unclear whether that application had been forwarded to the Court.

2. Whether the matter required remittal for the District Court to ascertain the status of the reference application and proceed accordingly.

Section 64 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 provides the route for seeking a reference to the Court in a land-acquisition matter.

Order XVI Rule 7 read with Section 151 CPC was invoked to seek production of the relevant application and to enable the Court to address the unresolved question whether the SLAO had forwarded it.

The Court’s directions required the District Court to verify the record and, if the application had not been forwarded, summon the relevant records from the SLAO and proceed in accordance with the Act.

The District Court’s own order sheet indicated that the reference had been received and directed registration of the matter, while the later proceedings proceeded on the footing that no reference had been made.

Given this inconsistency, rejecting the application to obtain the relevant record did not resolve the procedural uncertainty; it left the status of the petitioner’s Section 64 application undetermined.

The High Court therefore held that the District Court should establish whether the SLAO had forwarded the application and, if not, call for the relevant records before deciding how to proceed under the Act.

It remitted the matter to the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Koppal, to ascertain whether the SLAO had forwarded the petitioner’s original Section 64 application; if not, the Court was directed to summon the relevant records and pass an appropriate order in accordance with law.

The exercise was to be completed within three months of receipt of the certified copy, and the parties were directed to appear before the District Court on 26 October 2026.