Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Bom) 849

2026 BHC-AS 19609
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
MANISH PITALE, SHREERAM V. SHIRSAT, JJ.
Godrej & Boyce Manufacturing Company Limited - Petitioner
Versus
Collector, Mumbai Suburban District and Others - Respondents
Writ Petition No. 12027 of 2025 With Writ Petition No. 3467 of 2026
Decided On : 24-04-2026
Advocates Appeared :
For the Petitioner : Mr. Vineet Naik, Senior Advocate with Mr. Bhushan Deshmukh i/b. Bachubhai Munim & Co.
For the Respondents : Dr. Dhruti Kapadia, AGP, Mr. Anil Singh, Additional Solicitor General a/w. Mr. Prakash Pandey, Ms. Dhruvi Patni, Ms. Savita Rami, Mr. Adarsh Vyas, Mr. Jainendra Sheth, Mr. Rajdatt Nagre, Mr. Krishnakant Deshmukh and Ms. Rama Gupta, Ms. Arya Ambre, Law Officer, Bandra Collector Office, present, Mr. Rajesh Yadav, SLAO-7 from Collector Office, present.

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Vineet Naik, Bhushan Deshmukh
For the Respondents: Dhruti Kapadia, Anil Singh, Prakash Pandey, Dhruvi Patni, Savita Rami, Adarsh Vyas, Jainendra Sheth, Rajdatt Nagre, Krishnakant Deshmukh, Rama Gupta

The LARR Authority under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 possesses the jurisdictional competence to adjudicate upon the issue of limitation, as this concern inherently affects the authority's power to entertain a land acquisition reference.

Headnote:(A) Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 - Section 64 - Land Acquisition proceedings - Amendment of written statement - Liberal approach adopted - Limitation plea can be raised before the LARR Authority.

Facts of the case:
The petitioner, whose property was acquired by the State under the 2013 Act, initiated reference proceedings for enhancement of compensation. During the proceedings, the LARR Authority passed orders allowing an application for setting aside an ex-parte order against the Collector and for allowing the respondent Corporation to amend its written statement to include a limitation plea. The petitioner challenged these orders in the High Court.

Findings of Court:
The Court held that the LARR Authority was justified in exercising its discretion to set aside the ex-parte order and allow the amendment to pleadings. The Court clarified that the LARR Authority possesses the jurisdiction to determine the question of limitation, as this goes to the root of the jurisdiction to enter upon the reference.

Issues: Whether the LARR Authority erred in setting aside the ex-parte order and whether it has jurisdiction to entertain a plea of limitation.

Ratio Decidendi: The LARR Authority, as the replacement for the Court in reference proceedings under the 2013 Act, acts as the original authority with inherent jurisdiction to decide the question of limitation, rendering it appropriate to allow amendments that raise such mixed questions of law and fact.

Result: Petitions dismissed.

Judgement Key Points

Key Points: - Point 1 (!) - Point 2 (!) - Point 3 (!) - Point 4 (!) - Point 5 (!)

Question 1?

Question 2?

Question 3?

Table of Content
1. summary of land acquisition reference procedural history and background. (Para 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11)
2. parties' contentions regarding procedural lapse and jurisdictional questions. (Para 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21)
3. court's discretion to allow late filing/set aside ex-parte orders. (Para 22 , 23 , 24 , 25)
4. larr authority's jurisdiction to determine limitation and allowing pleadings. (Para 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34)

ORDER :

Manish Pitale, J.

The petitioner company was the owner of the property that was acquired by land acquisition award dated 15.09.2022 passed by the respondent Deputy Collector (Land Acquisition) No.7, Mumbai under the provisions of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Act of 2013’). The petitioner company has filed these two petitions being aggrieved by orders of the respondent Land Acquisition Rehabilitation and Resettlement Authority (hereinafter referred to as ‘LARR Authority’).

2. Writ Petition No. 12027 of 2025 is filed for challenging order dated 21.08.2025 passed by the LARR Authority, allowing application filed by respondent Nos.1 and 2 i.e. the Collector, Mumbai and the Deputy Collector (Land Acquisition) No.7, Mumbai for setting aside order dated 15.03.2024, whereby the said Authority had directed that the proceedings would continue ex-parte against the said respondents and also allowing their application for condoning delay and taking their written statement on record. Writ Petition No.3467 of 2026 has been filed to challenge order dated 18.02.2026 passed by the LARR Authority, allowing application filed by the respondent No.3 i.e. the National High Speed Rail Corporation Limited (hereinafter referred to as the ‘respondent Corporation’) for amendment of reply / written statement to the reference, particularly to add the objection regarding limitation.

3. According to the petitioner, both the orders, challenged in the writ petitions, are unsustainable on facts as well as law. It is submitted that the respondents were present before the LARR Authority from the year 2023 and their aforesaid applications have been allowed belatedly to the prejudice of the petitioner and this has the effect of delaying and derailing the proceedings before the LARR Authority.

4. The subject property is located in Village Vikhroli, Taluka Kurla, Dist. Mumbai Suburban, admeasuring approximately 10 acres, which was acquired by the aforementioned award dated 15.09.2022. The petitioner had filed Writ Petition No.3537 of 2019, challenging the acquisition undertaken by the respondents. This Court by judgment and order dated 09.02.2023 dismissed the said writ petition. The petitioner filed Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.3583 of 2023. The special leave petition was dismissed on 24.02.2023. However, the Supreme Court observed that upon the petitioner filing a reference for enhancement of compensation, the jurisdictional Court shall dispose of the reference within a period of six months.

5. Accordingly, the petitioner filed reference application before the respondent Collector on 28.02.2023. The application remained pending and hence, the petitioner was constrained to approach the LARR Authority for a direction to the Collector to make the reference. On 23.06.2023, the LARR Authority dismissed the application, on the ground that it did not have jurisdiction to give such a direction to the Collector. The petitioner was constrained to file Writ Petition (L) No.19756 of 2023 before this Court on 18.07.2023, which was disposed of by an order dated 11.09.2023, directing the respondent No.1 Collector to decide the application of the petitioner within 30 days.

6. On 25.09.2023, the respondent No.1 passed an order. There is a dispute between the petitioner and respondents, as to whether the said order specifically condoned the delay for placing the reference before t

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(Bom) 849

Question 1?

Question 2?

Question 3?

Cases Referred (1)