Aravind Kumar, J.

1. Petitioners are challenging the order passed by the Civil Judge (Sr. Dn), Challakere in LAC No. 206/2002 dated 08.01.2008 whereunder reference made by the Special Land Acquisition Officer on 01.01.1992 has been rejected as barred by limitation. I have heard the arguments of Sri B.M. Siddappa, learned Advocate appearing for revision petitioners. Respondents are served and unrepresented. Since petitioners-1 to 3 are L.Rs. of deceased respondent No. 2 memo has been filed to treat the petitioners 1 to 3 as legal heirs of deceased respondent No. 2. Memo is placed on record and accordingly they are ordered to be treated as L.Rs. of respondent No. 2. Perused the judgment in question.

2. It is the contention of Sri Siddappa, learned Advocate appearing for revision petitioners that when there is no fault committed by the petitioners and when they were under the bona fide impression that based on their representation dated 03.09.1991 reference would be made and accordingly said reference was made by the Assistant Commissioner-cum-Land Acquisition Officer on 01.01.1992, no fault can be laid at the doors of revision petitioners and when substantial justice is pitted against technicalities it has to yield to substantial justice and technicalities will have to take a back seat or recede to the background. As such, he contends that order passed by the reference Court be set aside and matter be remanded back to the reference Court for being adjudicated on merits. He would also submit that under similar circumstances in CRP No. 215/2008 and said revision petition came to be allowed by setting aside the order and remitted the matter back to the trial Court.

3. Having heard the learned Advocate appearing for revision petitioner, this Court is of the considered view that revision petition is liable to be dismissed without being admitted for following reasons:

In order to adjudicate the contentions raised by learned Counsel, it would be necessary to note the relevant dates and particulars which would have bearing on the issue and same are as under:-

Date	Particulars
26.07.1990	Award under Section 12 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 came to be passed
06.07.1991	Notice under Section 12(2) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 sent to claimants
03.09.1991	Claimants submitted an application to the Assistant Commissioner-Land Acquisition Officer seeking reference to Civil Court
01.01.1992	Reference made by the Assistant Commissioner-Land Acquisition Officer to the Civil Court.

4. Reading of Section 18(3)(a) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (as amended in State of Karnataka) (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act' for brevity) would indicate that Deputy Commissioner shall within 90 days from the date of receipt of an application under sub-section (1) make a reference to the Court. If for any reason Deputy Commissioner does not make such reference to the Court, under clause (b) of sub-section (3) of Section 18, such land loser or claimant would get right or cause of action to seek for a direction to the Land Acquisition Officer by filing a petition before the Civil Court within three years from the said date namely, after expiry of 90 days. Unlike in the Central enactment where period fixed under Section 18(2)(a) and (b) of the Act being six weeks and six months, Karnataka amendment provides for 90 days and three years respectively.

5. If for any reason, Assistant Commissioner or Special Land Acquisition Officer as the case may be, does not act upon the representation of claimant/s to make a reference under clause (a) of sub-section (3) of Section 18 of the Act as noticed above, claimants would get right to seek for reference after completion of 90 days or lapse of 90 days and cause of action which arose on the 91st day would be alive and ticking till completion of three yea