Limitation For Land Acquisition Reference Must Be Calculated From Date Of Knowledge If Statutory Notice Is Not Served: Madhya Pradesh High Court

"The knowledge of the party affected by such a decision, either actual or constructive, is an essential element which must be satisfied before the decision can be brought into force." Madhya Pradesh High Court, in a significant ruling dated October 5, 2026, held that the limitation period for filing a reference petition under Section 64 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (Act, 2013) must be computed from the date of actual or constructive knowledge of the award when no statutory notice has been served upon the landowner.

A bench of Justice Vinay Saraf observed that the reference to "Section 21" in Section 64(2)(b) of the Act, 2013 is a drafting error and must be read as "Section 37(2)" to ensure the protection of the constitutional right to property under Article 300A of the Constitution of India.

The petitioners were landowners whose properties were acquired for the Indore-Dahod Railway Line. Following the award passed by the Land Acquisition Officer on June 4, 2020, the petitioners filed reference petitions under Section 64 of the Act, 2013 in the year 2025 upon gaining knowledge of the award. The Reference Court rejected these petitions under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) on the grounds of limitation, prompting the present civil revision petitions.

The primary questions before the court were whether a reference petition can be filed within six months from the date of knowledge of the award in the absence of statutory notice, whether the Reference Court can reject a reference petition on preliminary grounds without deciding it on merits, and whether a civil revision petition is maintainable against an order rejecting a reference petition under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC.

Reading Down Section 64(2)(b)

The court observed that Section 64(2)(b) of the Act, 2013 refers to a notice under "Section 21," which pertains to preliminary notices issued before acquisition, rather than notices intimating the passing of an award. The court held that this is a legislative drafting error. By applying the principle of purposive interpretation, the court ruled that "Section 21" must be read as "Section 37(2)," which mandates the Collector to give immediate notice of the award to interested persons not present during the proceedings.

Limitation Based on Knowledge

The bench emphasized that the right to seek a reference is a crucial safeguard for the landowner. Literal interpretation of the limitation period, ignoring the lack of notice, would result in arbitrary and discriminatory outcomes. The court held that if the landowner or their representative was not present at the time of the award and no notice under Section 37(2) was served, the limitation period of six months must be computed from the date the landowner acquired actual or constructive knowledge of the award.

"The limitation for filing the reference case will start from the date of knowledge of the award and the land loser can file the reference petition within six months from the date of knowledge of the award."

Mandatory Decision on Merits

The court rejected the contention that a Reference Court has the authority to dismiss a reference petition at a preliminary stage. Citing the Supreme Court’s decision in Khazan Singh (Dead) by Lrs. v. Union of India, the bench held that once a reference is made by the Collector, the Reference Court is duty-bound to decide the objection on merits and pass an award under Sections 69 and 70 of the Act, 2013. The court clarified that the act of reference by the Collector serves as an executive validation, and the Reference Court cannot bypass its adjudicatory duty by resorting to procedural rejections.

Maintainability of Civil Revision

Regarding the maintainability of the revision petitions, the court noted that there was a conflict in the decisions of coordinate benches of the High Court. Adhering to the doctrine of stare decisis and the rule established in Jabalpur Bus Operators Association v. State of M.P., the court followed the earlier ruling in Somli v. State of M.P., which affirmed that a civil revision under Section 115 of the CPC is the appropriate remedy when a reference petition is rejected on preliminary grounds, as such an order does not qualify as an award.

Concluding the matter, the court set aside the impugned orders of the Reference Court that had rejected the petitions as time-barred. The cases were remanded to the Reference Court with a direction to adjudicate the claims on their merits after granting the parties a full opportunity of hearing.

Date of Decision: 05 October 2026