1. These appeals are preferred by the appellant- Corporation against the common judgment and award dated 19-10-2005 passed by the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Mehsana, in Land Acquisition Reference Nos.5487 to 5491 of 2003.
2. Since all these appeals arise out of common judgement and award passed by the learned Reference Court and raise common questions of fact and law, they were heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgement and order.
3. The lands of the claimants situated in Village Santhal Taluka and District Mehsana, were acquired the Special Land Acquisition Officer for the Drill/Well No.SNBK. The Special Land Acquisition Officer vide award dated 21-2-1984 in Compensation Case No.148 of 1982 fixed amount of compensation by way of rent @ Rs.00.32 ps per sq.mtr. Being dissatisfied with the same, the claimants moved references. As all the issues and evidence in all the above references were common, the references were consolidated by the reference court and main evidence was taken in LAR No.5487 of 2003. Reference Court passed the impugned award whereby Reference Court has granted compensation of Rs.3.33 per sq.mtr. from the date of taking over possession upto
1/1/2005 onwards, against an amount of Rs.0.32 ps. per sq.mtr. originally awarded by the Special Land Acquisition Officer under sec.35 of the Land Acquisition Act (“the Act” for short). The Reference Court also further directed the appellant Corporation to pay arrears of compensation with interest at the rate of Rs.12% p.a. from the date on which the amount has become due till 31/12/1999 and thereafter at the rate of 9% p.a. till the amount is realised or paid by the appellant. The Reference Court by the aforesaid judgement and award has also further directed that the amount of compensation fixed at Rs.15/- per sq.mtr will be increased at 15% at every interval of three years commencing from 1/1/2005 and the said increase will be calculated on the last presiding amount. The reference court has further observed to the effect that in the event of land not being surrendered to the original land owner, then in that case, the claimants will have right after expiration of period of 20 years to move the competent court for refixation of the amount of compensation in future. Being aggrieved with the said judgment and order, present appeals are preferred by the appellant Corporation.
4. Heard learned advocate, Mr.Kunal Naik for the appellant and learned AGP, Mr.Banaji, for the respondents.
5. It is stated by learned advocate, Mr.Kunal Naik for M/s Trivedi and Gupta for the appellant that identical issue involved in these appeals has been decided by a Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 13-3-2008 passed in First Appeal No.790 of 2007 with First Appeal Nos.791 to 794 of 2007 and hence, these appeals may be allowed on the same terms.
6. It is an admitted fact that in the present case, temporary acquisition was made on 21-2-1984 and the claimants have made applications for making reference before the Competent Authority in 2001 i.e. after a long lapse of 17 years. It has been held by a Division Bench of this Court (Coram: J.R.Vora and M.R.Shah,JJ.) reported in 2008(2) GLR page 1226 in the case of Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd. Vs. Sankarji Hemaji & Anr. in para 25 as under:
“It is true that under sub section (3) of sec.35 of the Act, no limitation is prescribed. However, that does not mean that the application for reference can be made at any time. Article 137 of the Limitation Act provides that when there is no limitation prescribed or provided, three years would be the limitation and from the date of cause of action within three years, an aggrieved person can initiate proceedings. The reference court has misinterpreted the provisions of Sec.35 of the Act. While considering the submissions with regard to the limitation, the reference court has held that as the entire land acquisition proceedings and the award are null and void, Article 137 of the Limitation Act (reference court has considered sec.137 of the Limitation Act wrongly) would not be applicable, more particularly when the Collector has failed to perform the duty cast upon him, making the reference to the reference court as provided under sub section (3) of section 35 of the Act. As stated above, such a findings and the observations of the Reference Court are perverse and illegal.”
7. No doubt, the period of limitation is not prescribed in filing reference as far as temporary acquisition is concerned. However, under the common law as well as under the provisions of General Clauses Act, it should be filed within reasonable time and reasonable time is three years. The issue involved in the present case is identical to the issue involved in the aforesaid decision rendered by the Division Bench of this Court and hence, in view of the principle laid down by the Division Bench, all these appeals deserve to be allowed.
8. In light of the aforesaid decision rendered by a Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 13-3-2008 passed in First Appeal No.790 of 2007 with First Appeal Nos.791 to 794 of 2007, all the appeals are allowed on the same line. Impugned common judgment and order dated 19-10-2005 passed by the Principal Senior Civil Judge,Mehsana in Land Reference Case Nos.5487 to 5491 of 2003 is quashed and set aside. There shall be no orders as to costs.
[M.D.SHAH,J.] radhan