The court established that under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, the Deputy Commissioner has a mandatory duty to make a reference within 90 days, and failure to do so, along with the claimant's inaction within the subsequent three years, results in the application being time-barred.

JUDGMENT

1. This writ petition is directed against the impugned judgment and award dtd. 7/9/2013 passed in LAC No.1/2011 & connected matters by the Senior Civil Judge, Harihar, whereby the said petition filed by the petitioners under Sec. 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short 'the L.A.Act') seeking enhancement of compensation was dismissed by the reference court.

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned AGA for the 1st respondent - State as well as learned counsel for the 2nd respondent and perused the material on record.

3. The material on record discloses that pursuant to the acquisition proceedings initiated in respect of the subject lands, the respondents passed an award on 18/8/2004 and a notice of the same was served upon the petitioners - claimants on 2/4/2005, pursuant to which, the petitioners filed reference applications before the 1st respondent - SLAO on 20/5/2005 within the prescribed period of 90 days. However, the SLAO did not refer the matter to the reference court, as a result of which, the petitioners submitted a reminder application on 20/3/2008 to the SLAO, who did not refer the matter at that time also. However, subsequently, on 29/3/2009, i.e., after a lapse of more than 3 years 90 days from the date of the application filed by the petitioners on 20/5/2005, the SLAO referred the matter to the civil court, which proceeded to dismiss the same as barred by limitation in view of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of State of Karnataka vs. Laxuman - (2005) 8 SCC 709, by holding as under:-

" 15. This Court has also held that in proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act before the authorities under that Act, Sec. 5 of the Limitation Act has no application. [See Officer on Special Duty (Land Acquisition) v. Shah Manilal Chandulal [(1996) 9 SCC 414] .] Therefore, Sec. 5 of the Limitation Act cannot be resorted to while making an application under Sec. 18(1) of the Act and the application has to be made within the period fixed by Sec. 18(2) of the Act.

16. The Division Bench of the High Court in Special Land Acquisition Officer v. G.C. Paramraj [ILR (1991) 2 Kant 1109] held that the Reference Court has not only the power, but also the duty, to consider whether the reference was time-barred and therefore invalid. It also held that Article 137 of the Limitation Act applies to an application under Sec. 18(3)(b) of the Act, a position approved by this Court. Then the Division Bench held that the power to make a reference under Sec. 18(3) subsists till the right of the party to make an application before the court seeking a direction to the Deputy Commissioner to make a reference exists and from this it followed that there is no power in the Deputy Commissioner to make a reference thereafter and if such a reference is made by the Deputy Commissioner it is invalid. An application to the court not made within 3 years after the expiry of 90 days from the date of the application under Sec. 18(1) of the Act, had to be rejected in limine. The Division Bench laid down the law thus: "It is a well-recognised rule of construction that in order to ascertain the true meaning of a provision the intention of the legislature, as ascertainable from the language of the provision is the safe guide. From the amendment of Sec. 18, it is clear that in addition to the time-limit of 90 days fixed in Sec. 18, the legislature intended to create a duty in the Deputy Commissioner to make a reference within 90 days and further if within the said period the Deputy Commissioner/Land Acquisition Officer failed to make a reference, to confer a right on the party to make an application before the court seeking a direction to the Deputy Commissioner to make the reference. If that right is not exercised by the party within time, then the right ceases. Once the right of the party to get a reference is time-barred, it would be incongruous to hold that the Deputy Commissioner can still make a reference, at any time even after