Unreasoned rejection of Section 18 applications for delay, absent Section 12(2) notice, is unsustainable.

The petitioners challenged orders rejecting their applications under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, on the ground of delay.

The land acquisition award had been made under Section 11(1) on 29 June 2005.

The petitioners contended that no notice under Section 12(2), nor a certified copy of the award, had been served upon them.

They claimed that applications seeking reference under Section 18 were filed on 29 June 2006 but were inadvertently misplaced by the authorities.

After approximately eleven years, show-cause notices were issued in 2017, followed by a further notice in 2018, and the applications were ultimately rejected on 18 July 2018.

In its affidavit, the competent authority admitted that no record of service of notice under Section 12(2) 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, was legally sustainable when the orders did not consider the petitioners’ explanation for the delay?

Whether the rejection orders were vitiated for violation of natural justice and failure to provide reasons, particularly when the petitioners alleged that notice under Section 12(2) and the award had not been served upon them?

Whether the applications under Section 18 filed in 2006 were required to be forwarded to the competent civil court for adjudication on merits?

The Court applied Section 12(2) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, which requires intimation of the Collector’s award to persons interested who were not present when the award was made, and Section 18, which provides for a reference to the competent civil court against the measurement, amount, apportionment or other objection relating to the award.

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

An order rejecting a statutory application on delay must address the applicant’s explanation and relevant circumstances; failure to do so renders the decision unsustainable.

The Court found that the impugned orders merely stated that the Section 18 applications deserved rejection because of delay, without considering the petitioners’ specific explanation that their applications had been filed in 2006 and had been misplaced by the authorities.

The orders also failed to address the material contention that no notice under Section 12(2) or certified copy of the award had been served.

This omission was particularly significant because the competent authority admitted that no record of service of the Section 12(2) notice was available.

Accordingly, the orders were non-speaking and contrary to natural justice.

The Court therefore held that the applications could not be rejected summarily on delay and should proceed to the competent civil court for determination on merits.

The Deputy Collector/Special Land Acquisition Officer was directed to forward the applications filed in 2006 to the competent civil court for registration and adjudication on merits.

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

The connected writ petitions were allowed, with no order as to costs.