LARR Authority Has Jurisdiction To Decide If Land Acquisition Reference Is Within Limitation: Bombay High Court

"It would be illogical to hold that while the LARR Authority has the jurisdiction to decide the reference on the question of enhancement of compensation on merits, it does not have jurisdiction to decide the question of limitation, " Bombay High Court, in a significant ruling, held that the Land Acquisition Rehabilitation and Resettlement Authority (LARR Authority) possesses the jurisdiction to determine whether a reference application has been filed within the prescribed period of limitation.

A bench of Justice Manish Pitale and Justice Shreeram V. Shirsat observed that since the LARR Authority has replaced the civil court in reference proceedings under the new land acquisition regime, it inherits the settled power to examine jurisdictional facts, including limitation.

The case arose from the acquisition of approximately 10 acres of land in Vikhroli belonging to Godrej & Boyce Manufacturing Company Limited for the National High Speed Rail project. After the petitioner sought a reference for enhanced compensation, which eventually escalated from Rs. 572 crores to nearly Rs. 1,972 crores, the LARR Authority allowed the State to file a belated written statement and permitted the beneficiary corporation to raise a plea of limitation. The petitioner challenged these orders before the High Court.

Court Identifies Core Issues Regarding LARR Jurisdiction

The primary question before the court was whether the LARR Authority has the jurisdiction to go into the question of limitation once a reference is made by the Collector under Section 64 of the RFCTLARR Act, 2013. The court was also called upon to determine if the State could be permitted to set aside an ex-parte order and file its written statement after a significant delay in reference proceedings.

LARR Authority Replaces Reference Court Under New Act

The Court observed that the LARR Authority, established under the Act of 2013, has replaced the "Reference Court" that functioned under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The Bench noted that the transition from a judicial court to a specialized authority does not diminish the fundamental requirement that the adjudicating body must first satisfy itself of its jurisdiction to entertain a claim.

LARR Authority Can Decide Jurisdictional Facts

The Bench emphasized that the power to decide a reference on merits naturally encompasses the power to decide whether the reference was validly made within the statutory timeframe. The court clarified that the LARR Authority must have the jurisdiction to decide whether it can enter upon a reference in the first place, as this aspect goes to the very root of the matter.

"The LARR Authority certainly has the jurisdiction to decide whether it can enter upon reference and this aspect goes to the very root of the matter."

Applicability Of Precedents Under The 1894 Act

The Court relied on the landmark Supreme Court decision in Mohammed Hasnuddin v. State of Maharashtra (1979) and the Bombay High Court's ruling in Shantaram Ganesh Shenoy v. Special Land Acquisition Officer, which established that the reference court could examine the Collector’s decision on limitation. The Bench held that this position of law applies with equal force to the LARR Authority under the 2013 Act.

Distinguishing Executive Functions Of The Collector

The petitioner argued that Section 64 of the Act of 2013 makes the Collector the sole authority to decide limitation. However, the High Court rejected this, stating that while the Collector performs an executive function in making the reference, the LARR Authority is not precluded from judicially examining whether the reference application was filed in time.

"Correctness of the conclusion reached by the Collector on the question of limitation can be assailed before the LARR Authority."

Liberal Approach To Amending Written Statements

Regarding the amendment of the written statement by the National High Speed Rail Corporation Limited (NHSRCL) to include a limitation plea, the Court reiterated the settled principle of adopting a liberal approach. It noted that since limitation is a mixed question of fact and law that can be raised at any stage, no prejudice is caused to the claimant if the plea is allowed to be incorporated.

Lack Of Institutional Mechanism For State Representation

The Court also addressed the State’s delay in filing its written statement, noting that the State had pointed to a lack of institutional mechanism for representation before the newly constituted LARR Authority. The Bench accepted that the time taken to identify and appoint special counsel constituted "sufficient cause" for condoning the delay, especially in a case involving substantial public funds.

"The exercise of appearance on behalf of the Collector and the drafting of pleadings could not be undertaken in reasonable time due to absence of an institutional mechanism."

Significant Escalation In Compensation Claim

A crucial factor in the Court's reasoning was the fact that the petitioner’s claim for enhanced compensation had increased by over Rs. 1,400 crores through amendments. The Bench observed that such a substantial escalation made it imperative for the State's response to be on record to ensure a fair adjudication of the reference on its merits.

High Court Refuses Interference In Original Proceedings

The Bench concluded that since reference proceedings are original in nature where parties lead evidence, the High Court should be slow to interfere with the discretionary orders of the LARR Authority under Article 227 of the Constitution. It held that the petitioner retains the right to contest the limitation plea on merits before the Authority itself.

The High Court dismissed both writ petitions, upholding the LARR Authority's orders. The Court directed the LARR Authority at Nashik to decide the reference proceedings expeditiously, preferably within a period of six months, while vacating all interim stays that had stalled the proceedings.

Date of Decision: 24 April 2026