The reference Court must consider all issues on their merits, and not dismiss a reference solely on the ground of limitation without considering other substantive issues.

JUDGMENT

Shrikant D. Kulkarni, J. - Heard finally at admission stage with the consent of all parties.

2. This appeal is directed against the impugned judgment and award passed in L.a.R. No. 1346 of 2010 by the reference Court / Civil Judge, Senior Division, Udgir dated 23.11.2015.

3. The facts giving rise to this appeal in brief are as under:

3(a) The land gut no. 242 admeasuring 55 R situated at village Deoni, Taluka Deoni, District Latur is owned and possessed by the appellants. The Government has acquired 55 R land for the construction of right canal of Devardhan Medium Project. The possession of the land of the appellants was taken by private negotiation by the acquiring body on 20.03.1995. The Special Land acquisition Officer passed the award on 13.07.2021. according to the appellants, the acquiring land is situated on Nilanga Udgir State Highway. There is bus stand opposite to the acquired land. There is also college building in front of the acquired land. Schools, colleges, Government quarters and P.W.D. rest house, primary health centre, market committee, Tahsil office are situated at Deoni. The acquired land had N.a. potentiality. N.a. permission was granted long back in the year 1995 prior to the initiation of acquisition proceedings. It is contented that the Special Land acquisition Officer determined the market value at the rate of Rs. 51,800/- per hectare, which is inadequate having regard to the location of the acquired land surrounded by the public offices.

3(b) The appellants received the amount of compensation under protest on 09.09.2005. Thereafter, the appellants filed reference before the Collector claiming enhanced compensation at the rate of Rs. 200/- per sq. ft. The reference was forwarded to the reference Court at Udgir. The reference Court / Civil Judte, Senior Division, Udgir was pleased to dismiss the reference moved by the appellants on the ground that it was not filed within a period of limitation.

4. Feeling aggrieved by the impugned judgment and award passed by the reference Court, the appellants / original claimants have preferred this appeal on various grounds.

5. Heard Mr. V.D. Gunale, learned counsel for the appellants, Mr. B.V. Virdhe, learned aGP for respondent No. 1 / State and Mr. Sham Patil, learned counsel appearing for respondent no.2 / acquiring body.

6. Mr. Gunale, learned counsel for the appellants invited my attention to the impugned judgment and award. He pointed out that the learned reference Court has simply recorded the finding in respect of issue of limitation. Learned reference Court though discussed in para no. 10 of the judgment about sufficient evidence produced by the claimants for enhancement of compensation, the reference Court has recorded negative finding against issue no.1, which is perverse. He also invited my attention to para no.12 of the impugned judgment and argued that the reference Court did not consider the issue of adequate compensation / reasonable compensation by holding that since the reference is not filed within limitation, there is no need to decide the issue of enhancement of compensation. Mr. Gunale, learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the entire approach of the reference Court is not only erroneous, but also against the well settled provisions of law. He submitted that the reference Court ought to have recorded findings against all the issues on the basis of pleadings and evidence. It was improper on the part of the reference Court to simply dismiss the reference on the point of limitation without recording findings on other issues. He, therefore, urged to quash and set aside the impugned judgment and award passed by the reference Court. He further prays to remand the matter to the reference Court for fresh decision.

7. Per contra, Mr. B.V. Virdhe, learned aGP for respondent no.1 / State and Mr. S.B. Patil, learned counsel for respondent no.2 / acquiring body supported the impugned judgment and award passed by the reference Court. They submitte