Mr. A K Singh, Advocate v. GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI AND ANR

$~16 to 18 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 788/2021 & CM APPL. 27282/2022 RANVIR SINGH RANA .....Petitioner Through: Mr. A K Singh, Advocate versus GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI AND ANR .....Respondents Through: Mr. Rajneesh Sharma, Mr. Ritank Kumar, Mr. Anil Pandey, Mr. Shailendra, Advocates 17 + W.P.(C) 789/2021 & CM APPL. 27295/2022 INDER SINGH SINCE DECEASED THROUGH LR KRISHAN RANA .....Petitioner Through: Mr. A K Singh, Advocate versus GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI AND ANR .....Respondents Through: Mr. Rajneesh Sharma, Mr. Ritank Kumar, Mr. Anil Pandey, Mr. Shailendra, Advocates 18 + W.P.(C) 8785/2021 & CM APPL. 27350/2021 SAMEEN KUMAR .....Petitioner Through: Mr. A K Singh, Advocate versus GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI AND ANR .....Respondents Through: Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Standing Counsel with Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha, Mr. Divakar Kapil, Advs This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 17/11/2025 at 13:06:31 CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE NITIN WASUDEO SAMBRE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANISH DAYAL O R D E R % 14.11.2025 1. All these three petitions are preferred by persons whose land was acquired and whose request for reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 (“Act of 1894”) was rejected vide orders dated 18th January 2020 and 7th September 2020. 2. Since the facts are similar in all these three petitions, by consent, these petitions are heard and disposed of together. 3. For convenience, we are considering the facts of W.P.(C) 788/2021 titled as “Ranvir Singh Rana v. Government of NCT of Delhi & Anr.” 4. Petitioner claims that his land, which is referred to in petition, was subjected to acquisition under the Act of 1894 through Section 4 notification dated 4th February 2010, and an award was passed against the said notification on 1st February 2012. 5. It is the case of petitioner that since the offer under the Award made by the Collector was not accepted, the remedy lies under Section 18 of the of Act of 1894, and as such, he has chosen to prefer an application under Section 18 seeking enhanced compensation on 23rd March 2012. 6. Petitioner further submits that the said request was not attended to for a substantial time, and his request for forwarding the reference to the Civil Court came to be rejected vide impugned order dated 18th January 2020. 7. Amongst other grounds sought to be canvassed to assail the impugned order dated 18th January 2020 are: (a) that the alleged inquiry This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 17/11/2025 at 13:06:31 conducted by the office of respondent in the matter of holding that the reference was never submitted, and was done behind the back of petitioner, and such inquiry cannot be held to be binding on petitioner as he was neither given notice nor any opportunity of hearing. As such, the finding recorded that the reference was not legally tendered in the office of the Land Acquisition Collector (‘LAC’), cannot be accepted or sustained in law; (b) reference was submitted and the certified copies of same were duly made available by the office of LAC, which speaks of the proposal being pending with the respondent; (c) reference preferred by petitioner was within the time stipulated under Section 18 (2) of the Act of 1894. 8. As against above, counsel appearing for respondent would urge that of the total references received, 46 references were processed, and all were referred to the concerned Civil Court for adjudication, as there were certain issues in relation to these 46 applications preferred under Section 18 of the Act of 1894. 9. It is further claimed that upon an internal inquiry conducted by the LAC, it was found that 36 out of 46 references preferred under Section 18 were genuine ones and were duly forwarded to the concerned Civil Court. According to him, of the remaining 10 references, the petitioner is concerned with present three petitions, as it is claimed that all three references alleged to have been submitted by petitioner were found to be either having parallel lodging / diary number which is overlapped with other genuinely submitted Section 18 applications. 10. As such, it is urged that since the inquiry reflects that the petitioner has tried to take undue advantage with the help of some insider from the office of LAC, the references cannot be said to be legally tendered under This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 17/11/2025 at 13:06:31 Section 18 of the Act of 1894. As such it is prayed that all these three petitions suffer from the suppression of material facts, as the petitioner has not approached this Court with clean hands by relying on documents which, according to the respondent, are not germane. 11. We have considered the submissions. 12. Proviso to sub section (2) of Section 18 of the Act of 1894 contemplates limitation period within which a reference can be submitted to the office of LAC after the date of award. In the case in hand, the date of award undisputedly, is 1st February 2012, whereas the application under Section 18 in the form of reference is claimed to be of 23rd/24th March 2012. 13. The respondents claim that an inquiry was conducted and 10 cases were found to be doubtful as the diary number on these 10 cases preferred under Section 18 were overlapping with diary numbers qua the other genuine reference cases. It is claimed that the talathi and other Revenue Officers were duly examined in the matter and accordingly the report was drawn in relation to the 10 spurious cases, out of which three references the petitioner is referring to in these petitions were found to be illegally tendered and prima facie appear to be time-barred claims hit by Section 18 (2). 14. As far as the internal inquiry is concerned, the fact remains that the petitioner was never put to any notice during such inquiry being conducted qua the proposal submitted by him. In case the petitioner had been put to notice in the matter of determining whether the proposal tendered by the petitioner was a spurious one or was lodged against an overlapping diary number, it would have been open to the petitioner to cross-examine the This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 17/11/2025 at 13:06:31 witnesses or submit his view on the same, which opportunity was not offered to the petitioner. 15. In such an eventuality, the report which was prepared behind the back of the petitioner cannot be relied on for determining petitioner’s claim to be spurious or contrary to the scheme or statutory mandate under the Act of 1894. 16. That being so, the decision of the respondent claiming that the reference application submitted under Section 18 by the petitioner cannot be said to be not within time or is spurious or illegal, cannot be sustained. 17. That being so, the order impugned thereby rejecting the application of the petitioner is hereby quashed and set aside. 18. We direct the Collector to forward the reference applications preferred under Section 18 of the Act of 1894 to the concerned Civil Court within a period of six weeks from the date of production of this order. 19. Pending applications are rendered infructuous. 20. Order be uploaded on the website of this Court. NITIN WASUDEO SAMBRE, J ANISH DAYAL, J NOVEMBER 14, 2025/sm/tk