Indore (Madhya Pradesh): The Indore bench of Madhya Pradesh High Court has ruled that landowners cannot be denied the right to seek enhanced compensation merely because a land acquisition award was passed years earlier, if they were neither present when the award was made nor served notice of it.
Justice Vinay Saraf, deciding a batch of civil revision petitions linked to land acquired for the Indore-Dahod railway line, held that where a land loser was not informed of the award under Section 37(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, the limitation period would begin from the date the person gained knowledge of the award. A reference can then be sought within six months of such knowledge.
The court also held that once the Collector refers a matter under Section 64 of the 2013 Act, the reference court cannot reject it at the threshold on the ground of limitation and must decide the case on merits.
The dispute arose from acquisition proceedings for the Indore-Dahod railway line. The acquisition notification was issued on January 10, 2018, and the award was passed on June 4, 2020.
In the lead case, the landowner approached the Collector in June 2025, claiming he had not earlier been informed of the award. Though the Collector referred the matter, the reference court dismissed it as time-barred.
The HC noted that Section 64(2)(b) refers to notice under Section 21, which concerns the government's intention to take possession and is ordinarily issued before the award.
It therefore read the reference to Section 21 as Section 37(2), which specifically provides for notice of the award to persons who were not present when it was made.
The court said any other interpretation could unfairly deprive a landowner of the right to challenge compensation simply because the award was never communicated.
Relying on Supreme Court precedents, the HC held that limitation must be reckoned from actual or constructive knowledge of the essential contents of the award and not mechanically from the date on which it was signed.
The court also held that a civil revision petition under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure is maintainable against an order of the reference court rejecting a reference petition under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC.
The HC consequently set aside the orders rejecting the landowners' reference petitions as time-barred and remanded the matters to the reference court for decision on merits after hearing all parties.
