The statutory obligation of the Deputy Commissioner to make a reference within 90 days and the right of the claimant to seek a reference continue to exist, emphasizing the legislative intent and rejecting literal construction of the statute.

( 1 ) THIS civil revision petition under Sec. 115 CPC, is preferred against the order dated 13-2-1981 passed by the Learned civil Judge, Ranebennur in LAC No. 7 of 1979 holding that the reference made by the Land Acquisition Officer is maintainable. The petitioner has raised an objection before the learned Civil judge that the reference made by the land Acquisition Officer is not valid because the same has been made after the expiry of 90 days from the date of the application filed by the claimant under S. 18 of the Land Acquisition act, 1894 (Central Act No. 1 of 1894) as amended by the Karnataka Act No. 17 of 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') for making a reference to a civil Court.

( 2 ) THE contention is that, after the expiry of 90 days from the date of filing an application under S. 18 of the Act, the Land Acquisition Officer ceases to have power to make a reference and thus becomes functus officio, therefore, the reference made by him after the expiry of the aforesaid period, is invalid. The learned Civil Judge has over-ruled this objection. The same contention is put forth in this revision petition also.

( 3 ) 3. 1. Sri W. K. Sundara Murthy, learned Counsel for the petitioner, submits that the power gi ven to the Deputy commissioner under S. 18 (3) of the act, is a statutory power which he has to exercise in accordance with the provisions contained in the Act, therefore, he is required to exercise that power before the expiry of 90 days from the date of filing of the application under s. 18 of the Act, for making a reference and if he fails to exercise that power within that period, he will not have jurisdiction to make a reference after the expiry of 90 days as the power gets exhausted. In other words, according to him, the Deputy Commissioner , becomes functus-officio. 3. 2 Sri C. S. Kothavale, learned high Court Government Pleader, supports the aforesaid contention and further submits that the very object of introduction of clause (a) of sub-sec. (3) of S. 18 of the Act, by the Karnataka act No. 17 of 1961 is defeated if it is held that the power exists even after the expity of 90 days to enable the Deputy Commissioner to make as reference. It i'3 further submitted that clauses (a) and (b) of sub-sec. (3) of S. 18 of the act are mutually exclusive. 3. 3. On behalf of the claimant-respondent, it is submitted that the Deputy commissioner does not cease to have power to make a reference even after the expiry of 90 days from the date of filing of the application under S. 18 of the Act, for making a reference, and it is not really the power that is enjoyed by the Deputy Commissioner; on the contrary it is a statutory obligation enjoined upon him to make a reference.

( 4 ) THUS, the question for consideration is whether the reference in question made by the Deputy Commissioner on the application filed under sub-sec. (1) of S. 18 of the Act, within the period allowed by sub-sec. (2) thereof, for making a reference, can be held to be valid, even though such reference is made after the expiry of 90 days from the date of filing of such application.

( 5 ) "5. 1. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that it is a power that is enjoyed by the Deputy Commissioner under S. 18 (3) of the Act, and if that power is not exercised within the period allowed by the statute, the same cannot at all be exercised thereafter. This contention cannot be accepted. It is not the power that is enjoyed by the Deputy Commissioner, but it is a statutory obligation. In the case of power, the authority is required to decide certain things but here in this case, the authority has no option or discretion whatsoever but to make a reference if an application under sub-sec. (1) of S. 18 of the Act, is filed within the period allowed by S. 18 of the Act, by any person interested in the property acquired and to whom the compensation in full or in part is payable and who has not " accepted the award. Thus, the Dep