The Land Acquisition Collector must forward a reference application under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 to the reference Court even if the Collector considers it time-barred; the issue of limitation is for the reference Court to decide.

Prathiba M. Singh, J. (Oral)

1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.

2. The present petition has been filed by the Petitioner-Mr. Sita Ram under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following prayers:

a. to set aside the order of the Respondent dated 20.12.2017 and direct the Respondent to forward the Reference U / S - 30 - 31 of LA, Act, 1894 to the appropriate Civil Court for proper adjudication

b. To direct the Respondent to pay the compensation as per compensation awarded by the Reference District Court, Dwarka, New Delhi in same notification & Award to the Petitioner; or

c. To pass any other/ further order/ relief which deem fit and proper according to the facts and circumstances of the case in his favour in the interest of justice;

It is prayed accordingly.

3. Vide the impugned order dated 20th December, 2017, the application of the Petitioner under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 has been rejected as being barred by time. The relevant extract of the order reads:

4. The case of the Petitioner is that, he had purchased 300 sq. yards of land being Plot No. 393, Khasra No.9/22, Laxmi Garden Colony, Nangli Sakrawati, Delhi (hereinafter, ‘the subject land’) from one Mr. Shisha Singh, through a registered sale deed dated 14th October, 2005.

5. A notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 dated

7^th April, 2006 was issued for the acquisition of the subject land. This was followed by a declaration under Section 6 which was issued on 4^th April, 2007. Pursuant thereto, the Award being 13/2008-19/SW was passed on 30^th March, 2009 by the Land Acquisition Collector, South-West, and the subject land of the Petitioner was acquired for the purpose of Planned Development of Delhi.

6. The case of the Petitioner is that he had made representations both under Section 18 and Section 30-31 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 to the Land Acquisition Collector (hereinafter ‘LAC’) for making a reference to the ld. District Judge and for release of compensation.

7. However, the application dated 30th March, 2012 under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was rejected vide the impugned order dated 20th December, 2017 on the ground that the same was barred by limitation. However, the application under Section 30-31 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 application is yet to be considered.

8. Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Ld. Standing Counsel for the LAC submits that the application under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 has already been disposed of, and the prayer in the present petition is only to forward the reference under Section 30-31 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.

9. Heard. A perusal of the prayer extracted hereinabove would show that the Petitioner prays for compensation in respect of the acquisition of the subject land, as well. The prayers sought read as under:

“a. to set aside the order of the Respondent dated 20.12.2017 and direct the Respondent to forward the Reference U / S - 30 - 31 of LA, Act, 1894 to the appropriate Civil Court for proper adjudication

b. To direct the Respondent to pay the compensation as per compensation awarded by the Reference

District Court, Dwarka, New Delhi in same notification & Award to the Petitioner; or

c. To pass any other/ further order/ relief which deem fit and proper according to the facts and circumstances of the case in his favour in the interest of justice;

It is prayed accordingly.”

10. In the opinion of this Court, the Ld. Division Bench in W.P.(C) 7817/2017 titled ‘ Chet Singh Rana v. Union of India ’, vide order dated 5th September, 2017, has held that even if there is an application under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, which has been held as time barred, the said issue would have to be decided by the concerned reference Court and not at the level of the LAC. The relevant portion of the order dated 5th September, 2017 is set out below:

“Issue notice. Sh. Yeeshu Jain, Advocate accepts notice. The limited relief claimed in this pet