Delhi High Court – Orders
Yadram vs Union Of India & Anr on 4 May, 2026
Author: Prathiba M. Singh
Bench: Prathiba M. Singh
$~30 & 31
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 13429/2023
YADRAM .....Petitioner
Through: Ms. Nitika Tyagi, Adv.
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ANR. .....Respondents
Through: Ms. Mrinalini Sen, SC with Mr. Karan
Mishra and Ms. Aditi Saxena, Advs.
Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, SC with
Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha, Mr. Mohd Sueb
Akhtar, Advs.
~31
+ W.P.(C) 13430/2023
YADRAM & ORS. .....Petitioners
Through: Ms. Nitika Tyagi, Adv.
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ANR. .....Respondent
Through: Ms. Mrinalini Sen, SC with Mr. Karan
Mishra and Ms. Aditi Saxena, Advs.
Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, SC with
Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha, Mr. Mohd Sueb
Akhtar, Advs.
CORAM:
JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH
JUSTICE MADHU JAIN
ORDER
% 04.05.2026
1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.
2. The present petitions have been filed by the Petitioners under Articles
226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, inter alia, seeking issuance of an
appropriate writ directing the Land Acquisition Collector (hereinafter,
‘LAC’), South-West District, New Delhi to refer the reference petition of the
Petitioners before the concerned Court under Section 18 of the Land
W.P.(C) 13429/2023 & W.P.(C) 13430/2023 Page 1 of 6
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 07/05/2026 at 20:41:26
Acquisition Act, 1894.
3. The case of the Petitioner is that reference petition under Section 18 of
the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 has not been forwarded by the LAC. The basic
defence of the LAC is that the challenge is extremely belated and hence, the
same does not deserve to be referred to the concerned ld. District Judge.
4. The stand of the Delhi Development Authority (hereinafter, ‘DDA’) is
that after the award dated 17th August, 2011, the Petitioner has challenged the
acquisition after a lapse of 7 years.
5. The order dated 13th February, 2024 passed by the LAC is placed on
record. Recently in Sita Ram v. Union of India, 2026:DHC:3618-DB, this
Court has already held that in so far as cases where petitions are filed with
delay, the view taken is that the delay is to be considered by the ld. District
Judge as to whether whether the reference of the Petitioner would be
maintainable or not. However, the LAC is free to put up its view before the
ld. District Judge to this effect that the same is belated. The relevant portion
of the decision in Sita Ram (Supra.) reads as under:
“9. Heard. A perusal of the prayer extracted
hereinabove would show that the Petitioner prays for
compensation in respect of the acquisition of the
subject land, as well. The prayers sought read as
under:
“a. to set aside the order of the Respondent dated
20.12.2017 and direct the Respondent to forward
the Reference U / S – 30 – 31 of LA, Act, 1894 to
the appropriate Civil Court for proper
adjudication
b. To direct the Respondent to pay the
compensation as per compensation awarded by
the Reference District Court, Dwarka, New Delhi
in same notification & Award to the Petitioner;
W.P.(C) 13429/2023 & W.P.(C) 13430/2023 Page 2 of 6
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 07/05/2026 at 20:41:26
or
c. To pass any other/ further order/ relief which
deem fit and proper according to the facts and
circumstances of the case in his favour in the
interest of justice;
It is prayed accordingly.”
10. In the opinion of this Court, the Ld. Division
Bench inW.P.(C) 7817/2017 titled ‘Chet Singh Rana
v. Union of India‘, vide order dated 5th September,
2017, has held that even if there is an application under
Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, which
has been held as time barred, the said issue would have
to be decided by the concerned reference Court and not
at the level of the LAC. The relevant portion of the
order dated 5th September, 2017 is set out below:
“Issue notice. Sh. Yeeshu Jain, Advocate
accepts notice. The limited relief claimed in
this petition under Article 226 of the
Constitution is to set-aside an order of the
respondent/LAC dated 31.01.2017, declining
to forward the reference under Section 18 of
the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 [hereafter “the
1894 Act”].
The Award in this case was made on
01.02.2012. The petitioner in this case
requested for a reference on 15.01.2014. It was
stated that the petitioner received the
compensation on 28.11.2014 and he was in the
dark till the impugned order, as to whether the
reference had been forwarded to the competent
court.
The LAC in the impugned order expressed the
opinion that the application under Section 18
of the 1894 Act is time-barred and that in so
saying he relied upon the provisions of Section
12(2) of the 1894 Act.
W.P.(C) 13429/2023 & W.P.(C) 13430/2023 Page 3 of 6
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 07/05/2026 at 20:41:26
The respondent’s counsel argued that the
impugned order should not be interfered with
given the mandate of the law and the fact that
the LAC was competent to decide and
pronounce upon the issue of limitation. It is
also urged that the compensation under
Sections 30/31 of the 1894 Act was rendered
on 30.10.2013.
We have heard learned counsel for the parties.
Without expressing any opinion on the merits
of the issue of limitation, the Court is of the
view that the reference petition – which is the
only opportunity provided by law to a land
owner to establish his case for higher
compensation by leading evidence, should be
forwarded under Section 18 of the 1894 Act.
At the same time, it is open to the reference
Court to decide the issue of limitation, if so
raised by the respondent, in opposition to the
maintainability.
In view of the above, the order dated
31.01.2017 is set-aside. The LAC shall also
forward the reference to the competent court
within six weeks. All questions of law,
including the issue of limitation are kept
open.
The writ petition is allowed in the above
terms.”
11. Recently, the order dated 5th September, 2017
has been followed by this Court in W.P.(C) 2686/2018,
titled ‘Anand Khanna v. Union of India‘, wherein this
Court vide order dated 23rd April, 2026 has held as
under:
“[…]
W.P.(C) 13429/2023 & W.P.(C) 13430/2023 Page 4 of 6
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 07/05/2026 at 20:41:26
14. After having perused the record, it becomes
clear that upon the receipt of the
compensation, the Petitioner sought
enhancement thereof by filing the reference
petition u/s 18 of the Act.
15. The same ought not to be dismissed simply
in the manner as it has been done vide the
impugned order.
16. The impugned order is, accordingly, set
aside.
17. The reference petition filed by the
Petitioner dated 19th December, 2011 shall
now be sent to the concerned ld. District
Judge for deciding the same, including the
issue of limitation, in accordance with law.
18. The petition is disposed of in the above
terms. Pending applications, if any, are also
disposed of.”
12. Following the order dated 5thSeptember, 2017
in Chet Singh Rana (Supra) and order dated 23rd
April, 2026 in Anand Khanna (Supra), this Court is of
the opinion that the applications under Section 18 and
30-31 deserve to be sent by the LAC to the appropriate
reference Court -albeit with a note that according to
the LAC, the application is barred by limitation.”
6. In terms of the above decision, let the reference petition filed by the
Petitioners under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 be forwarded
within four weeks, by the LAC to the concerned ld. District Judge with a note
on the aspect of delay, if so required. The Ld. District Judge shall then proceed
in accordance with law.
W.P.(C) 13429/2023 & W.P.(C) 13430/2023 Page 5 of 6
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 07/05/2026 at 20:41:26
7. These petitions are disposed of along with pending applications if any.
PRATHIBA M. SINGH, J.
MADHU JAIN, J.
MAY 4, 2026/prg/ck
W.P.(C) 13429/2023 & W.P.(C) 13430/2023 Page 6 of 6
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 07/05/2026 at 20:41:26
