VISHWANATHA SHETTY, GOPALA GOWDA, J.

( 1 ) THE question, which we are required to answer in this civil revision petition, is as to whether the reference made by the Land Acquisition Officer/deputy Commissioner to the Civil Court beyond three years and ninety days from the date of the reference application made, is barred; and whether the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to entertain such a reference and consider the claim of the claimant for adjudication for payment of higher compensation.

( 2 ) ). A few undisputed facts that are relevant for disposal of this revision petition, may be set out as under : (A) The petitioner, in this revision petition, is the owner of lands bearing R. S. No. 8/3a and 48/2b of Bijjur village, Muddebihal Taluk, Bijapur District. The said lands were acquired by the State for public purpose as provided under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") and an Award came to be passed in LAQ/cr-6/78-79 on 28th of March 1990. The petitioner not being satisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the Special Land Acquisition Officer, the respondent, made an application on 25th of June 1980 for determination of the quantum of compensation by the Civil Court. The Land Acquisition Officer made a reference as provided under sub-section (2) of Section 18 of the Act on 16th of October 1984 to the Civil Court, that is, 4 years, 3 months and 21 days after the date of the reference application made by the petitioner. The learned First Additional Civil Judge, Muddebihal, by his order dated 10th of August 1993, rejected the reference made by the Land Acquisition Officer on the ground that the reference made by the Land Acquisition Officer was beyond three years and ninety days from the date of the application filed seeking reference and, therefore, the reference made was illegal and without jurisdiction and as such, the Court has no jurisdiction to act upon the said reference. (B) Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner has presented this revision petition. It is relevant to point out that the learned Civil Judge obviously rejected the reference made following the Division Bench decision of this Court in the case of Special Land Acquisition Officer v. Gurappa Channabasappa Paramaj, ILR 1991 Kant 1109 : (AIR 1992 Kant 97) wherein this Court has taken the view that a reference made by the Land Acquisition Officer beyond three years and ninety days from the date of the reference application, was illegal and beyond he power of the Land Acquisition Officer. The learned single Judge of this Court (Krishna Moorthy, J.), before whom this revision petition came up for consideration, expressed his doubt with regard to the correctness of the law laid down by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Special Land Acquisition Officer (AIR 1992 Kant 97) (supra) and felt that the said decision requires to be reconsidered by this Court and in that view of the matter, by his order dated 27th of March 1996, referred this revision petition to the Division Bench under Section 9 of the Karnataka High Court Act, 1961. Thereafter, the Division Bench of this Court (Krishna Moorthy and Ashwathanarayana Rao, JJ.), while admitting the revision petition, felt that the aforesaid decision of this Court in the case of Special Land Acquisition Officer (supra) requires to be reconsidered by a larger Bench and, therefore, directed this revision petition to be referred to a Full Bench for deciding the question, referred to above. This is how this revision petition is placed before us for our consideration.

( 3 ) SRI Gadag, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, submitted that the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Special Land Acquisition Officer (AIR 1992 Kant 97) (supra) does not lay down the correct law and the said decision requires to be reconsidered as pointed out by the orders of reference made by the learned single Judge and the Division Bench of this Court,

Click Here to Read the rest of this document