Bombay High Court
Godrej And Boyce Manufacturing Company … vs The Collector Mumbai Suburban District on 24 April, 2026
Author: Manish Pitale
Bench: Manish Pitale
2026:BHC-AS:19589-DB
WP12027_25&anr.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO.12027 OF 2025
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.3467 OF 2026
Godrej & Boyce Manufacturing Company Limited ... Petitioner
Vs.
Collector, Mumbai Suburban District and others ... Respondents
Mr. Vineet Naik, Senior Advocate with Mr. Bhushan Deshmukh i/b. Bachubhai
Munim & Co. for Petitioner in both the Petitions.
Dr. Dhruti Kapadia, AGP for Respondent Nos.1, 2 and 4-State in both the
Petitions.
Mr. Anil Singh, Additional Solicitor General a/w. Mr. Prakash Pandey, Ms.Dhruvi
Patni, Ms. Savita Rami, Mr. Adarsh Vyas, Mr. Jainendra Sheth, Mr. Rajdatt
Nagre, Mr. Krishnakant Deshmukh and Ms. Rama Gupta for Respondent No.3-
NHSRCL in both the Petitions.
Ms. Arya Ambre, Law Officer, Bandra Collector Office, present.
Mr. Rajesh Yadav, SLAO-7 from Collector Office, present.
CORAM : MANISH PITALE &
SHREERAM V. SHIRSAT, JJ.
Reserved on : APRIL 09, 2026
Pronounced on: APRIL 24, 2026
ORDER :
(Per Justice Manish Pitale)
. The petitioner company was the owner of the property that was
acquired by land acquisition award dated 15.09.2022 passed by the
respondent Deputy Collector (Land Acquisition) No.7, Mumbai under
the provisions of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in
Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013
(hereinafter referred to as ‘Act of 2013’). The petitioner company has
filed these two petitions being aggrieved by orders of the respondent
Land Acquisition Rehabilitation and Resettlement Authority (hereinafter
referred to as ‘LARR Authority’).
1/18
::: Uploaded on – 24/04/2026 ::: Downloaded on – 25/04/2026 09:30:14 :::
WP12027_25&anr.doc
2. Writ Petition No. 12027 of 2025 is filed for challenging order
dated 21.08.2025 passed by the LARR Authority, allowing application
filed by respondent Nos.1 and 2 i.e. the Collector, Mumbai and the
Deputy Collector (Land Acquisition) No.7, Mumbai for setting aside
order dated 15.03.2024, whereby the said Authority had directed that the
proceedings would continue ex-parte against the said respondents and
also allowing their application for condoning delay and taking their
written statement on record. Writ Petition No.3467 of 2026 has been
filed to challenge order dated 18.02.2026 passed by the LARR
Authority, allowing application filed by the respondent No.3 i.e. the
National High Speed Rail Corporation Limited (hereinafter referred to as
the ‘respondent Corporation’) for amendment of reply / written
statement to the reference, particularly to add the objection regarding
limitation.
3. According to the petitioner, both the orders, challenged in the writ
petitions, are unsustainable on facts as well as law. It is submitted that
the respondents were present before the LARR Authority from the year
2023 and their aforesaid applications have been allowed belatedly to the
prejudice of the petitioner and this has the effect of delaying and
derailing the proceedings before the LARR Authority.
4. The subject property is located in Village Vikhroli, Taluka Kurla,
Dist. Mumbai Suburban, admeasuring approximately 10 acres, which
was acquired by the aforementioned award dated 15.09.2022. The
petitioner had filed Writ Petition No.3537 of 2019, challenging the
acquisition undertaken by the respondents. This Court by judgment and
order dated 09.02.2023 dismissed the said writ petition. The petitioner
filed Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.3583 of 2023. The special leave
petition was dismissed on 24.02.2023. However, the Supreme Court
observed that upon the petitioner filing a reference for enhancement of
2/18
::: Uploaded on – 24/04/2026 ::: Downloaded on – 25/04/2026 09:30:14 :::
WP12027_25&anr.doc
compensation, the jurisdictional Court shall dispose of the reference
within a period of six months.
5. Accordingly, the petitioner filed reference application before the
respondent Collector on 28.02.2023. The application remained pending
and hence, the petitioner was constrained to approach the LARR
Authority for a direction to the Collector to make the reference. On
23.06.2023, the LARR Authority dismissed the application, on the
ground that it did not have jurisdiction to give such a direction to the
Collector. The petitioner was constrained to file Writ Petition (L)
No.19756 of 2023 before this Court on 18.07.2023, which was disposed
of by an order dated 11.09.2023, directing the respondent No.1 Collector
to decide the application of the petitioner within 30 days.
6. On 25.09.2023, the respondent No.1 passed an order. There is a
dispute between the petitioner and respondents, as to whether the said
order specifically condoned the delay for placing the reference before
the LARR Authority. Be that as it may, on 10.10.2023, the respondent
No.1 Collector made the reference under Section 64 of the Act of 2013
before the LARR Authority, which at that point in time, was located at
Aurangabad. On 18.10.2023, the LARR Authority issued notice to
respondent Nos.1 and 2 in the reference, posting the same for
consideration on 03.11.2023. On the said date, respondent Nos.1 and 2
i.e. the Collector and the Deputy Collector (Land Acquisition) failed to
appear before the LARR Authority and hence, a further notice was
issued. On 06.12.2023, the petitioner filed its application for amendment
of the reference. By an order dated 02.02.2024, the LARR Authority
allowed the application for amendment. By way of amendment, the
petitioner added detailed pleadings and referred to certain further sale
instances to ask for further enhanced amount of compensation. On
02.05.2024, the petitioner filed second application for amendment,
3/18
::: Uploaded on – 24/04/2026 ::: Downloaded on – 25/04/2026 09:30:14 :::
WP12027_25&anr.doc
further seeking an increase in the quantum of the enhanced
compensation, to the tune of Rs.1972 crores in the light of the report of
an expert valuer, which was also sought to be placed on record. On
10.05.2024, this second amendment was also granted.
7. It is relevant to note that by the first amendment, the respondent
No.3 Corporation i.e. the beneficiary of the acquisition was added as a
party. The LARR Authority issued further notices to respondent Nos.1 to
3 and despite service of such notices, respondent Nos. 1 and 2 failed to
appear before the LARR Authority. Respondent No.3 appeared and filed
its reply / written statement on 05.04.2024.
8. It is the case of the petitioner that while respondent Nos.1 and 2
failed to appear before the LARR Authority for as many as 9 hearings,
respondent No.3 Corporation was represented by its Advocate. In the
meanwhile, due to the failure on the part of respondent Nos.1 and 2 to
appear before the LARR Authority, by the order dated 15.03.2024, it was
directed that the matter would proceed ex-parte against respondent Nos.1
and 2.
9. It is in this backdrop that on 19.12.2024, the respondent No.2
Deputy Collector (Land Acquisition) addressed a letter to the Registrar
of the LARR Authority at Aurangabad, stating that the award issued by
the said respondent may be treated as its written statement and that
respondent Nos.1 and 2 do not wish to file any further written statement.
The petitioner heavily relied upon the said letter in the present
proceedings. It is also the case of the petitioner that in further hearings
also, respondent Nos.1 and 2 remained unrepresented and that the
respondent No.3 was present through its Advocate. On 12.03.2025, the
reference was transferred to LARR Authority at Nashik. At this stage, in
April 2025, respondent Nos.1 to 3 filed six applications, including the
applications leading to orders that have been challenged in these two
4/18
::: Uploaded on – 24/04/2026 ::: Downloaded on – 25/04/2026 09:30:14 :::
WP12027_25&anr.doc
writ petitions. The impugned orders were passed on application seeking
setting aside of ex-parte order (exhibit 105); application seeking
condonation of delay in filing written statement and for taking written
statement on record of respondent Nos.1 and 2 (exhibit 107); as also
application filed by respondent No.3 seeking amendment of its reply /
written statement, particularly to include the ground of limitation
(exhibit 103).
10. On 21.08.2025, the LARR Authority passed the impugned order
on exhibits 105 and 107, setting aside the ex-parte order dated
15.03.2024, condoning delay in filing written statement and accepting
the written statement of respondent Nos.1 and 2 on record. The
petitioner prayed for stay of the said order, which the LARR authority
granted for a period of four weeks. On 12.09.2025, the petitioner filed
Writ Petition No.12027 of 2025 to challenge the said impugned order
dated 21.08.2025. On 17.09.2025, this Court continued the said stay
granted by the LARR Authority, which has continued to operate during
the pendency of the said writ petition.
11. On 18.02.2026, the LARR Authority passed the second impugned
order, allowing exhibit 103, being the application filed by respondent
No.3 to amend its reply / written statement to incorporate plea of
limitation. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed Writ Petition
No.3467 of 2026. According to the petitioner, both the impugned orders
are unsustainable. Upon completion of pleadings in the writ petitions,
the same were taken up for hearing.
12. Mr. Vineet Naik, learned senior counsel appearing for the
petitioner in both the writ petitions submitted that the LARR Authority
committed a grave error in passing the impugned orders. It was
submitted that the order dated 15.03.2024 was passed by the LARR
Authority at Aurangabad to proceed against respondent Nos.1 and 2 ex-
5/18
::: Uploaded on – 24/04/2026 ::: Downloaded on – 25/04/2026 09:30:14 :::
WP12027_25&anr.doc
parte due to their repeated absence in the reference proceedings under
Section 64 of the Act of 2013. The application for setting aside the ex-
parte order was filed more than a year after the said order dated
15.03.2024 and in the interregnum also, the respondent Nos.1 and 2 had
failed to appear before the LARR Authority. It was submitted that before
the application for setting aside the ex-parte order was filed, by letter
dated 19.12.2024, respondent No.2 informed the Registrar of the LARR
Authority at Aurangabad that the award itself be treated as the written
statement of the respondent Nos.1 and 2 and further that the respondents
did not wish to file their written statement. It was submitted that in this
backdrop, the said applications for setting aside the ex-parte order and
for permission to take written statement of respondent Nos.1 and 2 on
record, ought not to have been entertained by the LARR Authority. It
was submitted that in any case, respondent Nos.1 and 2 had failed to
show sufficient cause for considering their prayer for setting aside ex-
parte order and hence, there was no question of taking their written
statement on record.
13. By placing reliance on judgement of this Court in the case of
Kamalabai Bhaskar Mule (dead) through Legal Heirs and others Vs.
Special Land Acquisition Officer (No.1), Nashik and others, 2021 (1)
Mh.L.J. 521, it was submitted that the reference proceedings before the
LARR Authority could not be treated as a suit and therefore, strict rules
of pleadings and consequences of non-filing of written statement were
not applicable to such proceedings. It was submitted that since the award
issued by respondent No.2 is the offer made to claimants like the
petitioner herein, the respondent Nos.1 and 2 could not state anything
beyond the said award in their reply / written statement. It was submitted
that the aforesaid letter dated 19.12.2024 sent by the respondent No.2
was in line with the said position of law, and that therefore, there was no
question of permitting the said respondents to file their written statement
6/18
::: Uploaded on – 24/04/2026 ::: Downloaded on – 25/04/2026 09:30:14 :::
WP12027_25&anr.doc
after such a long period of delay. On this basis, it was submitted that the
impugned order dated 21.08.2025 passed by the LARR Authority was
based on erroneous appreciation of facts as well as law.
14. On the second impugned order dated 18.02.2026, it was submitted
that the respondent No.3, having already filed its written statement on
05.04.2024, could not have been permitted to amend the same after
almost two years. It was submitted that in any case, plea of limitation
could not be raised before the LARR Authority. It was asserted that the
only authority under the provisions of the Act of 2013 to consider the
question of limitation and to condone delay, if any, was the respondent
No.1 Collector and that the LARR Authority does not have jurisdiction
to consider the said question. Reliance was placed on judgement of the
Supreme Court in the case of Deputy Commissioner and Special Land
Acquisition Officer Vs. S. V. Global Mill Limited, 2026 SCC OnLine SC
171, to contend that the respondent No.1 Collector, under Section 64 of
the Act of 2013, exercises an executive function, and therefore, once the
reference is made by the Collector to the LARR Authority, the said
Authority does not have jurisdiction to go into the question of limitation.
It was submitted that this Court followed the said position of law in a
recent judgement in the case of Hirabai Sonu Wanjari (Kale) and others
Vs. State of Maharashtra and others (judgement and order dated
10.02.2026 passed in Writ Petition No.1508 of 2026), thereby showing
that the LARR Authority has no jurisdiction to go into the question of
limitation and that the reference has to be decided on merits. Much
emphasis was placed on order dated 25.09.2023 passed by the
respondent No.1 Collector, holding that there was no delay in making
the reference. On this basis, it was submitted that there was no question
of allowing respondent No.3 to amend its written statement to raise the
plea of limitation.
7/18
::: Uploaded on – 24/04/2026 ::: Downloaded on – 25/04/2026 09:30:14 :::
WP12027_25&anr.doc
15. It was submitted that in any case, there was no question of delay
in the light of the fact that writ petition challenging the acquisition
proceeding, and thereafter the special leave petition filed by the
petitioner were pursued before this Court and the Supreme Court,
thereby showing that there was no delay in approaching the respondent
No.1 Collector for reference. In this regard, reliance was placed on
judgement of the Supreme Court in the case of Manharlal Shivlal
Panchal and others Vs. Deputy Collector & Special Land Acquisition
Officer and others, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1707. It was submitted that
therefore, the LARR Authority had committed a jurisdictional error in
passing the impugned order dated 18.02.2026.
16. It was submitted that the LARR Authority also failed to appreciate
that the reference proceedings were delayed due to the recalcitrant
approach of the respondents and that they could not be permitted to take
benefit of their own wrong. On this basis, it was submitted that the writ
petitions ought to be allowed and the impugned orders deserve to be set
aside.
17. Dr. Dhruti Kapadia, learned AGP appearing on behalf of
respondent Nos.1, 2 and 4 – State submitted that the LARR Authority
had correctly allowed the application for setting aside the ex-parte order
and for taking the written statement of the said respondents on record. It
was submitted that although the award is indeed the offer made by the
said respondents as regards quantum of compensation, in the light of the
reference application of the petitioner being amended twice, the said
respondents were entitled to file their written statement. It was further
submitted that in any case, the said respondents had made out sufficient
cause as to why they could not file their written statement earlier. In this
context, attention of this Court was invited to the contents of the
application seeking condonation of delay and for permission to file
8/18
::: Uploaded on – 24/04/2026 ::: Downloaded on – 25/04/2026 09:30:14 :::
WP12027_25&anr.doc
written statement, specifically the portion where it was asserted that no
official or institutional mechanism had been established for representing
the State of Maharashtra, particularly the office of the Collector before
the newly constituted LARR Authority. It was submitted that no
prejudice was caused to the petitioner by the impugned order dated
21.08.2025 passed by the LARR Authority and on this basis, it was
submitted that Writ Petition No.12027 of 2025 deserved to be dismissed.
18. Mr. Anil Singh, learned ASG appearing on behalf of respondent
No.3 Corporation vehemently opposed the prayer made in Writ Petition
No.3467 of 2026. It was submitted that as per settled law, the LARR
Authority allowed the prayer for amendment of the written statement. It
was repeatedly held by the Supreme Court and this Court that Courts
have to be liberal in permitting amendment of written statements. The
proceeding before the LARR Authority, being an original proceeding,
the said position of law clearly applies, and therefore, the petition
deserves to be dismissed. In support of the said contention, reliance was
placed on judgements of the Supreme Court in the cases of B. K.
Narayana Pillai Vs. Parameswaran Pillai and another, (2000) 1 SCC
712; Rajesh Kumar Aggarwal and others Vs. K. K. Modi and others,
(2006) 4 SCC 385; Baldev Singh and others Vs. Manohar Singh and
another, (2006) 6 SCC 498; and Life Insurance Corporation of India Vs.
Sanjeev Builders Private Limited and another, (2022) 16 SCC 1.
19. As regards the jurisdiction of the LARR Authority to consider the
question of limitation, it was submitted that the Supreme Court had
categorically held, in a number of judgements, including judgement in
the case of Mohammed Hasnuddin Vs. State of Maharashtra, (1979) 2
SCC 572, that the reference court has the jurisdiction to decide the
question as to whether the reference was made within limitation. This
Court in the case of Shantaram Ganesh Shenoy Vs. Special Land
9/18
::: Uploaded on – 24/04/2026 ::: Downloaded on – 25/04/2026 09:30:14 :::
WP12027_25&anr.doc
Acquisition Officer, Ratnagiri, 2006 SCC OnLine Bom 314 followed
the said position of law.
20. It was submitted that since the LARR Authority, upon enactment
of the Act of 2013, replaced the Court as regards consideration of
reference proceedings, the said position of law clearly applied and
therefore, Writ Petition No.12027 of 2025 filed by the petitioner also
deserves to be dismissed. It was submitted that in any case, allowing a
plea of limitation to be raised does not mean that the petitioner cannot
dispute the same, and therefore, no prejudice has been caused to the
petitioner.
21. It was specifically submitted that the order dated 25.09.2023
merely recorded the contention of the petitioner and it could not be said
to be condoning delay in making the reference. On this basis, it was
submitted that there was no substance in the contentions raised on behalf
of the petitioner.
22. This Court has considered the rival submissions in the light of the
voluminous documents filed in the two writ petitions. A perusal of the
impugned order dated 21.08.2025, subject matter of challenge in Writ
Petition No.12027 of 2025, shows that the LARR Authority allowed the
applications for setting aside ex-parte order and for condoning delay and
taking the written statement of respondent Nos.1 and 2 on record. A
perusal of the same shows that the LARR Authority referred to the
contentions of the rival parties as also the judgements relied upon by
them and it came to a considered conclusion that allowing the
applications would be in the interest of justice, while rejecting the same
would not be appropriate. In this context, it was also noted that the
reference application itself was permitted to be amended on two
occasions.
10/18
::: Uploaded on – 24/04/2026 ::: Downloaded on – 25/04/2026 09:30:14 :::
WP12027_25&anr.doc
23. A perusal of the orders allowing the amendment applications
moved on behalf of the petitioner shows that the LARR Authority
permitted the petitioner to incorporate pleadings and prayers to
substantially increase the claim towards enhanced compensation raised
on behalf of the petitioner. The record shows that originally, in the
reference application under Section 64 of the Act of 2013, the petitioner
relied upon the proceedings of the District Level Committee to claim
enhanced compensation at Rs.572 crores. Upon the two amendments of
the reference application being granted, the claim had blown up to
approximately Rs.1972 crores. It cannot be said that this was a wholly
irrelevant consideration when the LARR Authority thought it fit to set
aside the ex-parte order and to allow the written statement of respondent
Nos.1 and 2 to be taken on record.
24. On the aspect of sufficient cause being made out by the said
respondents, we are inclined to accept the contention of the learned AGP
that since official and institutional mechanism for representing the State
before the newly constituted LARR Authority was yet to be established
and notified, the exercise of appearance on behalf of the Collector and
the Special Land Acquisition Officer as also the drafting of pleadings
could not be undertaken in reasonable time. It was specifically pleaded
before the LARR Authority that the exercise of identifying and
appointing special counsel for handling the matters before the LARR
Authority was delayed, due to which steps could not be taken for
representation of respondent Nos.1 and 2 in the proceedings initiated by
the petitioner and reply / written statement could not be placed on record
in time. It was specifically pleaded before the LARR Authority that
drafting of written statement required a detailed examination of the
voluminous record and co-ordination between the departments so as to
respond to the detailed grounds taken in the reference application of the
petitioner. This Court is of the opinion that there were sufficient
11/18
::: Uploaded on – 24/04/2026 ::: Downloaded on – 25/04/2026 09:30:14 :::
WP12027_25&anr.doc
pleadings placed on record on behalf of respondent Nos.1 and 2 to press
their prayer for setting aside the ex-parte order, condoning delay in filing
written statement and for taking the same on record. The approach
adopted by the LARR Authority in this regard cannot be said to be
erroneous. In any case, the petitioner has not suffered any prejudice.
Even if the respondent No.2 had sent the aforesaid letter dated
19.12.2024 to the Registrar of the LARR Authority, stating that
respondent Nos.1 and 2 would not file their written statement and that
the award itself could be treated as the written statement, it cannot be
said that the LARR Authority was denuded of its power from
considering and allowing the said applications for setting aside the ex-
parte order, condoning the delay in filing written statement and for
taking the same on record. We find that reliance placed by the learned
AGP on the judgement of the Supreme Court in the case of G. P.
Srivastava Vs. R. K. Raizada and others, (2000) 3 SCC 54, in the
context of ‘sufficient cause’ is appropriate.
25. We also find that the petitioner cannot insist that the written
statement of the respondent Nos.1 and 2 ought not to be brought on
record on the basis of the position of law laid down by a learned Single
Judge of this Court in the case of Kamalabai Bhaskar Mule (dead)
through Legal Heirs and others Vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer
(No.1), Nashik and others (supra). Even if it is to be stated that the
reference proceedings before the LARR Authority need not strictly
adhere to the rules of pleadings in a civil suit, considering the fact that
they are original proceedings and in the light of the reference of the
petitioner being amended on two occasions, no prejudice is caused to the
petitioner if the written statement of respondent Nos.1 and 2 has been
taken on record. Hence, we are not inclined to interfere with the
impugned order dated 21.08.2025.
12/18
::: Uploaded on – 24/04/2026 ::: Downloaded on – 25/04/2026 09:30:14 :::
WP12027_25&anr.doc
26. As regards impugned order dated 18.02.2026, we find that the
LARR Authority permitted the respondent No.3 Corporation to amend
the written statement in order to raise the plea of limitation. The
petitioner contends that such an amendment could not be permitted as
the LARR Authority does not have jurisdiction to decide the question of
limitation. We are unable to agree with the said contention. We find
substance in reliance placed on behalf of the respondent No.3
Corporation on the aforementioned judgements in the cases of
Mohammed Hasnuddin Vs. State of Maharashtra (supra) and
Shantaram Ganesh Shenoy Vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer,
Ratnagiri (supra), wherein it was held that the reference court under
Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, had the jurisdiction to
decide the question as to whether the reference before the Collector had
been made within limitation or not. Since the LARR authority under the
provisions of the Act of 2013 has replaced the Court for considering
reference applications under Section 64 of the Act of 2013, the said
position of law applies with equal force in the context of the LARR
Authority also.
27. This Court in the aforesaid judgement in the case of Shantaram
Ganesh Shenoy Vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer, Ratnagiri
(supra) followed the position of law clarified by the Supreme Court in
the aforementioned judgement in the case of Mohammed Hasnuddin
Vs. State of Maharashtra (supra), to categorically hold that the
reference court had the jurisdiction to decide whether the reference
application was made within limitation. We are of the opinion that 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. This is for the reason that the LARR Authority
certainly has the jurisdiction to decide whether it can enter upon
13/18
::: Uploaded on – 24/04/2026 ::: Downloaded on – 25/04/2026 09:30:14 :::
WP12027_25&anr.doc
reference and this aspect goes to the very root of the matter. The
anomaly in the contention raised on behalf of the petitioner becomes
evident from the settled position of law that the issue of limitation can be
raised at any point of time as it impinges upon the very exercise of
jurisdiction. Yet, if the contention raised on behalf of the petitioner is
accepted, only the LARR Authority would not have the jurisdiction to
consider the said issue. In other words, in a challenge raised to the order
of the LARR Authority, the question of limitation could be considered
and indeed even in a further challenge, but the LARR Authority, despite
being the original authority, would not have such jurisdiction. This
cannot be countenanced.
28. We also find no substance in the contention raised on behalf of the
petitioner that since the Supreme Court in the case of Deputy
Commissioner and Special Land Acquisition Officer Vs. S. V. Global
Mill Limited (supra) and followed by this Court in the case of Hirabai
Sonu Wanjari (Kale) and others Vs. State of Maharashtra and
others (supra) have held that since the Collector under Section 64 of the
Act of 2013 exercises an executive function, any plea regarding
limitation cannot be raised before the LARR Authority. We do not find
that the aforementioned judgements of the Supreme Court and this Court
support such a proposition in any manner. We are unable to agree with
the contention raised on behalf of the petitioner that Section 64 of the
Act of 2013, being a complete Code in itself, shows that only the
Collector has the power to decide the question as to whether the
reference is made within limitation or not, and that the correctness of the
conclusion reached by the Collector on the question of limitation cannot
be assailed before the LARR Authority.
29. Once it is held that the LARR Authority indeed has jurisdiction to
go into the question of limitation, the opportunity granted to respondent
14/18
::: Uploaded on – 24/04/2026 ::: Downloaded on – 25/04/2026 09:30:14 :::
WP12027_25&anr.doc
No.3 Corporation to raise the plea of limitation by way of amendment of
its written statement, merely leads to the issue of limitation being raised
before the LARR Authority. Allowing the respondent No.3 Corporation
to raise such plea of limitation does not mean that its stand has been
accepted by the LARR Authority. The petitioner clearly has an
opportunity to contest the said issue and demonstrate that the reference
was clearly within limitation. No prejudice is caused to the petitioner by
the order 18.02.2026. Reliance placed on behalf of the petitioner on the
judgement of the Supreme Court in the case of Ambya Kalya Mhatre
(dead) through LRs and others Vs. State of Maharashtra, (2011) 9 SCC
325 can also not take its case any further. In the said judgement, the
Supreme Court considered the scheme of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894
and the fact that the award is merely an offer and the broad contours of
reference proceedings. The said judgement does not aid the petitioner in
showing any error committed by the LARR Authority, while passing the
impugned order dated 18.02.2026.
30. Since the issue of limitation is yet to be contested and answered in
the reference proceedings, we find that reliance placed on the judgement
of the Supreme Court in the case of Manharlal Shivlal Panchal and
others Vs. Deputy Collector & Special Land Acquisition Officer and
others (supra) is also misplaced. As to whether the petitioner is justified
in claiming that the reference was clearly within limitation in the light of
the pendency of its writ petition challenging acquisition before this
Court and the special leave petition filed before the Supreme Court, is an
issue to be agitated before the LARR Authority and hence, this Court
will not comment upon the same.
31. We find substance in the contention raised on behalf of
respondent No.3 Corporation that the Supreme Court in the
aforementioned judgements in the cases of B. K. Narayana Pillai Vs.
15/18
::: Uploaded on – 24/04/2026 ::: Downloaded on – 25/04/2026 09:30:14 :::
WP12027_25&anr.doc
Parameswaran Pillai and another (supra), Rajesh Kumar Aggarwal
and others Vs. K. K. Modi and others (supra), Baldev Singh and
others Vs. Manohar Singh and another (supra) and Life Insurance
Corporation of India Vs. Sanjeev Builders Private Limited and
another (supra) has repeatedly laid down that hyper-technical approach
ought not to be adopted while considering prayer for amendment of
pleadings. It is settled position of law that while considering amendment
of written statement, a more liberal approach is to be adopted as
compared to when amendment of a plaint is sought. Applying the said
position of law, in the present case, we find no error committed by the
LARR Authority while passing the impugned order dated 18.02.2026. A
perusal of the said order shows that while the language could have been
better, the reasoning for allowing the application of respondent No.3
Corporation is contained in paragraph 9 of the said order. The LARR
Authority correctly observed that the question of limitation is a mixed
question of facts and law and on occasions, even in appeal, issue of
limitation is framed and that therefore, no harm would be caused to the
petitioner if the amendment was allowed. We find that the impugned
order dated 18.02.2026 contains sufficient justifiable reasons for
allowing the application for amending the reply / written statement filed
on behalf of the respondent No.3 Corporation for including the plea of
limitation. As noted hereinabove, no prejudice is caused to the petitioner
on such an amendment being allowed.
32. We also find substance in the contention raised on behalf of the
respondent No.3 as regards the contents of the order dated 25.09.2023. A
perusal of the said order shows that the Collector, while considering the
application moved by the petitioner under Section 64 of the Act of 2013,
recorded the pleading of the petitioner that by excluding the period from
15.09.2023 to 24.02.2023, there was no delay as stated in paragraph 7 of
the application. This period obviously referred to the pendency of the
16/18
::: Uploaded on – 24/04/2026 ::: Downloaded on – 25/04/2026 09:30:14 :::
WP12027_25&anr.doc
writ petition before this Court and the special leave petition before the
Supreme Court. Thereafter, the Collector simply recorded ‘closed for
orders / necessary submission to authority under Section 64’. It is not
clear that as to whether the Collector actually held that there was no
delay by excluding the said period. There is no specific finding in that
regard. A perusal of the reference application forwarded to the LARR
Authority shows that in Form 4 against column No.3 pertaining to the
question ‘whether the applicant has filed the application within the
prescribed time period’, the endorsement is recorded as ‘no’. The
forwarding letter from the respondent No.2 Deputy Collector (Land
Acquisition) dated 10.10.2023 addressed to the Registrar of the LARR
Authority, Aurangabad recorded that delay was condoned as per letter
dated 19.05.2023 sent by the respondent No.1 Collector. Such material
indeed indicates that the issue as to whether there was any delay and if
so, whether it was condoned by the Collector needs to be thrashed out
before the LARR Authority. This is another reason why we are not
inclined to interfere with the impugned order dated 18.02.2026 passed
by the LARR Authority.
33. We are of the opinion that reference proceedings, being original
proceedings, wherein the parties lead evidence in support of their
respective stands, once the LARR Authority has exercised discretion in a
reasonable manner and allowed the applications filed by respondent
Nos.1, 2 and 3, it would not be appropriate for this Court, exercising writ
jurisdiction, to interfere with the same. All that the petitioner is now
required to do is to contest the matter on merits and such a situation
cannot be said to be prejudicial to it.
34. In view of the above, we find no merit in the writ petitions and
accordingly, the writ petitions are dismissed. The interim orders
operating in the writ petitions are vacated. The LARR Authority at
17/18
::: Uploaded on – 24/04/2026 ::: Downloaded on – 25/04/2026 09:30:14 :::
WP12027_25&anr.doc
Nashik is directed to take up the reference proceedings and to decide the
same expeditiously, and preferably within six months.
(SHREERAM V. SHIRSAT, J.) (MANISH PITALE, J.) Minal Parab 18/18 ::: Uploaded on - 24/04/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 25/04/2026 09:30:14 :::
[ad_1]
Source link
