JUDGMENT

1. Heard Mr. Vishnuprasad Lawande, who appears along with Mr. Parimal Redkar for the Appellant and Ms. Sapna Mordekar, learned Additional Government Advocate for the Respondents.

2. This appeal challenges the Judgment and Award dtd. 23/6/2016 in Land Acquisition Case No.3/2015, by which the Reference Court rejected the reference on the ground of limitation. The Reference Court also considered the merits and held that the Appellant made no case for compensation above Rs.7.00 per sq. mtr. as determined by the Land Acquisition Officer (LAO).

3. Mr. Lawande submits that the respondents never raised the limitation issue; therefore, the Reference Court could not have suo moto gone into this issue. Without prejudice, he proposes that the findings recorded by the Reference Court are contrary to the material on record. He submits that the Reference Court has adopted a literal and mechanical construction of the phrase "date of the award" in clause (b) of the proviso to Sec. 18(2) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (said Act). He submits that such a construction is contrary to the law in Raja Harish Chandra Raj Singh vs. Deputy Land Acquisition Officer and Another - AIR 1961 SC 1500 .

4. Mr. Lawande submits that a portion of Survey No.32/7, Cotarlim, Sanguem, Goa, was acquired in 1993. He points out that the LAO had accepted that the land in Survey No.32/7 was bharad land and offered a rate of Rs.25.00 per sq. mtr. He submits that there is no evidence of the land being affected by tenancy. He proposes that after granting appropriate escalation, the rate should be determined at Rs.150.00 per sq. mtr.

5. Ms. Mordekar learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the respondent submitted that no evidence was led by the Appellant about the date of knowledge of the award. She, therefore, offers that the Reference Court was justified in rejecting the reference as barred by limitation. She relies on Mohammed Hasnuddin vs. The State of Maharashtra - AIR 1979 SC 404 to submit that the Reference Court was justified in ascertaining whether the reference was within limitation, even though the respondents might not have raised such an issue.

6. Ms. Mordekar submits that the earlier acquisition was regarding bharad lands and paddy fields. Second, she submits that the Appellant claims to have cultivated the acquired lands; therefore, they must be paddy fields. Third, she submits that there is evidence of tenancy reflected in the survey records. Finally, she submits that there is evidence about the acquired property being used as a public road.

7. Based on all this, she submits that there was no question of any escalation. Therefore, she presents the determination of Rs.7.00per sq. mtr. by the LAO as fair and proper even considering the 1993 award. She relies on The Goa Housing Board vs. Rameshchandra Govind Pawaskar - 2011 (10) SCC 731 to submit that agricultural tenanted lands cannot be compared with the other lands not affected by the tenancy factor. For these reasons, Ms. Mordekar submits that this appeal may be dismissed.

8. The rival contentions now fall for my determination.

9. Based on the rival contentions and the material on record, the following three points arise for determination:

"(a) Was the Reference Court justified in suo moto taking up the limitation issue?

(b) If yes, whether the Reference Court has correctly held the reference to be beyond the period of limitation?

(c) If no, then whether the Reference Court was justified in not enhancing the rate determined by the LAO?"

10. On the first issue of whether the Reference Court could have suo moto taken up the issue of limitation even though the respondents never raised the same, the submission of Ms. Mordekar based on Mohammed Hasnuddin (supra) will have to be upheld.

11. In Mohammed Hasnuddin (supra) the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the court functioning under the Act being a tribunal of special jurisdiction, it is its duty to see that the reference made to it by t