LARR Authority Has Jurisdiction To Examine Limitation In Land Acquisition References Under 2013 Act: Bombay High Court

The Bombay High Court has held that the Land Acquisition Rehabilitation and Resettlement Authority, which replaces the reference court under the 2013 Act, has jurisdiction to decide the question of limitation in reference proceedings. The Court observed that since the Authority exercises powers akin to the reference court, it necessarily has the jurisdiction to determine whether a reference is within limitation. 

A division bench of Justices Manish Pitale and Shreeram V. Shirsat was hearing two writ petitions filed by Godrej & Boyce Manufacturing Company Limited, challenging orders passed by the LARR Authority allowing applications filed by the State authorities for setting aside an ex parte order and taking their written statement on record, and permitting the beneficiary corporation to amend its written statement to raise a plea of limitation. The petitioner contended that the LARR Authority had no jurisdiction to consider limitation, as the power to examine delay rested solely with the Collector under Section 64 of the 2013 Act.

The Court noted that the LARR Authority is the forum before which reference proceedings are adjudicated, replacing the role earlier performed by the reference court under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. It referred to judgments holding that the reference court has jurisdiction to decide whether a reference is made within the limitation.

The Court held that once the LARR Authority has replaced the reference court, the same position of law applies, and it would be illogical to hold that while the Authority can decide the reference on merits, it cannot examine whether it has jurisdiction to entertain the reference on the ground of limitation. It observed:

“… 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 reference, and this aspect goes to the very root of the matter.”

Rejecting the petitioner's contention that the Collector's decision on limitation is final, the Court held that the provisions of Section 64 do not exclude the jurisdiction of the LARR Authority to examine the issue. It further observed that permitting a plea of limitation to be raised does not mean that it is accepted, and the petitioner would have full opportunity to contest the issue before the Authority.

The Court found that the LARR Authority had exercised its discretion in allowing the State authorities to file their written statement and in permitting amendment of the written statement to raise the plea of limitation. It held that no prejudice was caused to the petitioner and that the impugned orders did not suffer from any illegality or perversity warranting interference under writ jurisdiction.

Accordingly, the High Court dismissed the writ petitions and directed the LARR Authority to decide the reference proceedings expeditiously.

Case Title: Godrej & Boyce Manufacturing Company Limited vs. Collector, Mumbai Suburban District & Ors. [Writ Petition No.12027 of 2025 with Writ Petition No.3467 of 2026]

Case Title: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 219

Click Here To Read/Download Order