wp 966-2024.odt 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. WRIT PETITION NO. 966 OF 2024 PETITIONERS : 1. Sahebrao S/o Tulshiram Nitnaware, aged about 60 years, Occ: Cultivation, Resident of Takarkheda Purna, Tahsil and District Amravati 444806. 2. Jagjiwan S/o Ajabrao Nitnaware, aged about 53 years, Occ:Cultivation, Resident of Asadpur, Tahsil Achalpur, District Amravati 444806. ..VERSUS.. RESPONDENTS : 1. State of Maharashtra, Through Collector, Amravati, Tahsil and District Amravati 2. Sub Divisional Officer and Special Land Acquisition Officer, Achalpur, Tahsil Achalpur, District Amravati. 3. Executive Engineer, Purna Medium Project Division, Achalpur (New Office: Executive Engineer, Amravati Irrigation Department, Amravati, Tahsil & District Amravati). -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mr. R.L. Kadu, Advocate for petitioner(s). Ms M.S. Naik, AGP for respondent/State Mr. M.A. Kadu, Advocate for respondent No. 3 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2026:BHC-NAG:13041 wp 966-2024.odt 2 CORAM : NANDESH S. DESHPANDE, J. DATE OF RESERVING THE JUDGMENT : 21.09.2026. DATE OF PRONOUNCING THE JUDGMENT : 30.09. 2026. JUDGMENT 1. Heard. 2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally with the consent of the learned Counsel appearing for the respective parties. 3. The present petition challenges the order dated 06.02.2020 passed by respondent No.2 – Sub Divisional Officer and Special Land Acquisition Officer, Achalpur, District Amravati, whereby the Reference filed by the petitioner under Section 64 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (for short, “the Act of 2013”) came to be rejected on the ground of limitation. Further, the petitioner also challenge the consequential communication dated 12.02.2020. The principal grievance of the petitioner is that the Reference filed on 27.11.2019 was accompanied by an application for condonation of delay, which was neither considered nor decided, and the Reference came to be rejected at the threshold. wp 966-2024.odt 3 4. The brief facts giving rise to the present petition are that the petitioner are co-owners of agricultural land under dispute. The said land was acquired for the Chandrabhaga Barrage Medium Irrigation Project. respondent No.2 passed the Final Award on 26.03.2018, granting compensation. According to the petitioner, inadequate compensation was determined and the total compensation awarded was Rs.1,05,91,442/-. 5. It is the case of the petitioner that thereafter respondent No.2 issued communication dated 28.03.2018, calling upon them to remain present on 11.04.2018 for receiving the compensation amount and to produce the relevant documents. The said communication was received by the petitioner on 11.04.2018 itself. The petitioner further contend that an inter-se dispute regarding apportionment of the compensation amount arose between them, which came to be resolved by respondent No.2 on 12.07.2019, whereby their respective shares in the awarded amount were determined. 6. I have heard R.L. Kadu, the learned Counsel for the petitioner, Ms M.S. Naik, the learned AGP for respondent/State and Mr. M.A. Kadu for respondent No. 3. 7. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that respondent No.2 has failed to consider the proviso to Section 64 wp 966-2024.odt 4 of the Act of 2013, which permits the Collector to entertain an application beyond the initial period if sufficient cause is shown. It is submitted that the limitation ought to have been considered having regard to the date of knowledge/communication of the Award, the dispute regarding apportionment which was resolved on 12.07.2019 and the receipt of the certified copy of the Award on 26.11.2019. The judgments relied upon in support in the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Raja Harish Chandra Raj Singh v. Deputy Land Acquisition Officer, AIR 1961 SC 1500, Bhagwan Das v. State of U.P., (2010) 3 SCC 545 and Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag v. Mst. Katiji, (1987) 2 SCC 107. It is submitted that respondent No.2 ought to have considered and decided the application for condonation of delay before rejecting the substantive Reference. 8. It is further submitted that the compensation awarded was inadequate, principally on the ground that respondent No.2 ought to have taken into consideration the last publication of the notification under Section 11 of the Act of 2013, which, according to the petitioner, was on 20.10.2016, instead of 30.09.2015. According to the petitioner, the acquired land was fertile black- cotton soil and the sale instances of inferior lands were relied upon while determining the market value. It is their contention wp 966-2024.odt 5 that the provisions of Sections 26 to 30 of the Act of 2013 were not properly applied and the relevant sale instances and prevailing rates in the adjoining areas were not considered. 9. The petitioner contend that the market value ought to have been determined at Rs.30,00,000/- per hectare. On that basis, according to their calculation, the value of 3.24 Hectares would be Rs.97,20,000/-, with Rs.23,80,734/- towards the 12% component and Rs.97,20,000/- towards 100% solatium, making a total of Rs.2,18,20,734/-. As against this, respondent No.2 determined the compensation at Rs.1,05,91,442/- and, therefore, the petitioner claimed an enhanced amount of Rs.1,12,29,292/-. 10. Furthermore, it is submitted by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that a certified copy of the award was applied for and duly received on 26.11.2019. On 27.11.2019, they filed a Reference under Section 64 of the Act of 2013 along with an application for condonation of delay. By order dated 06.02.2020, respondent No.2 rejected the Reference as barred by limitation, observing that there was no provision under Section 64 to entertain the Reference after one year. The petitioner contend that the said approach was erroneous, particularly when the application for condonation of delay was filed along with the Reference. wp 966-2024.odt 6 11. Per contra, respondent No.2, in its reply, admits that the petitioner had filed an application for condonation of delay along with the Reference under Section 64 of the Act of 2013. It is, however, submitted that when the matter was taken up, the Reference was found to be barred by limitation and not maintainable as having not been filed within the stipulated period. According to respondent No.2, the communication dated 28.03.2018 was duly served upon the petitioner and, therefore, they had sufficient knowledge of the Award. It is further submitted that since the Reference itself was barred by limitation, there was no occasion to consider the grounds relating to valuation or enhancement of compensation. The respondent, therefore, seeks dismissal of the petition. 12. Rival contents fall for my consideration. 13. Before proceeding further, it would be appropriate to point out certain dates which are undisputed. The Award in question was passed on 26.03.2018 and a communication was accordingly addressed on 28.03.2018, which was received on 11.04.2018. Even as per the petitioner’s claim, the dispute regarding apportionment was decided on 12.07.2019. The petitioner’s, thereafter, applied for certified copy of the Award on 26.09.2019, and the said certified copy was received on the same wp 966-2024.odt 7 date. In the backdrop of these facts, a reference was filed on 27.09.2019. It is obvious that the reference filed u/s 64 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Land Acquisition Act, 2013’) was beyond limitation. 14. I have gone through the impugned order, which states that even though the Reference along with delay application was filed on 27.09.2019, the same was placed before the Authority only on 06.02.2020. The said Authority states that since there is no power u/s 64 of the Act of 2013 to condone delay, the same cannot be done. 15. In the backdrop of these facts, if Section 64 of the Act of 2013 is perused, it reveals that as per Section 64(2), the application is to be made within six weeks from the date of Collector’s Award, if the person making it was present or represented before the Collector. Furthermore, Section 64(2)(b) of the Act of 2013, speaks about the said reference being made within six weeks of the receipt of the notice from the Collector u/s 21 of the Land Acquisition Act, 2013 or within six months from the date of Collectors Award, whichever period shall first expire. The second proviso, however, engrafts that the Collector may entertain such an application after the expiry of the said period, wp 966-2024.odt 8 but only within a further period of one year, if he is satisfied that there were sufficient causes for not filing the application within the prescribed period. It, therefore, follows that even though a power is granted to the Collector to entertain the application for condonation of delay in filing reference, the said power is circumscribed and can only be exercised within a period of one year. In other words, even though there is a power of condonation of delay, the said power is to be exercised only to condone delay of one year and not beyond that. 16. As can be seen from the various dates mentioned above, the Award being passed on 26.03.2018 and the Reference was made on 27.09.2019. The date of Reference was beyond the prescribed period of one year. It, therefore, follows that the Authority was right in rejecting the application for condonation of delay since the concerned Authority lacks power to condone the delay beyond the said period. 17. The Counsel for petitioner has placed reliance on various judgments to support his submission. However, as far as the judgment of this Court passed in Writ petition No. 626/2025 is concerned, the question was regarding referring the dispute to the Competent Court u/s 76 of the Act of 2013. Same is the case with another judgment on which reliance is placed by the learned wp 966-2024.odt 9 Counsel for the petitioners, i.e. Writ petition No. 4563/2024. As far as the judgment of this Court of Aurangabad Bench bearing Writ petition No. 13634/2025 is concerned, in the said matter, Award was passed on 03.05.2023, and the reference was made on 14.09.2023. The delay application was eventually rejected by the Collector in the said matter. Thus, the question which fell for consideration before this Court was whether the Collector was right in rejecting the application for condonation of delay, even though it was within his power to do the same, since the reference was made beyond six weeks, but within the outer limit of one year as prescribed under the proviso to Section 64 of the Land Acquisition Act of 2013. Thus, all these judgments do not take the case of the petitioner’s forward. 18. In the totality of the circumstances, I am of the considered opinion that when a Statutory Authority is granted a power to condone delay till a specific period, any exercise beyond the said period would certainly be without jurisdiction. The power of condonation of delay was granted to the Collector, but the same is circumscribed by an outer limit of one year. It, therefore, follows that the Collector was right in rejecting the application for condonation of delay as of it being filed beyond the prescribed period and outer limit of one year. Thus, there is no perversity or wp 966-2024.odt 10 jurisdictional error in the order of the Authority. 19. The Writ petition being devoid of any substance is liable to be rejected. Accordingly, the Writ petition is rejected. Rule is discharged. (NANDESH S. DESHPANDE, J.) Jayashree.. Signed by: Mrs. Jayashree Pethe Designation: PA To Honourable Judge Date: 01/10/2026 12:28:26