The main legal point established in the judgment is the limited jurisdiction of the Reference Court in awarding rental compensation beyond the period of three years as per Section 35(3) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.

R.M. CHHAYA, J.

1. By way of this appeal filed under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (the Act) read with Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (the CPC) the appellant acquiring body has challenged judgment and award dated 12.12.2005 passed under Section 35(3) of the Act by Additional Senior Civil Judge, Gandhinagar in Land Acquisition Reference No. 781 of 1998.

2. The State had acquired the land belonging to the private respondent original claimant under Section 35 of the Act. It appears from the record that by order dated 28.04.1994 passed under Section 35(2) of the Act the Special Land Acquisition Officer determined and awarded rental compensation @ Rs. 1.85 sq. mtr. Being aggrieved by the same, the claimant preferred references before the Reference Court claiming Rs. 10 sq. mtr. per year. The Reference Court by the impugned judgment and award passed under Section 35(3) of the Act partly allowed the land references and ordered to pay additional amount of rental compensation at Rs. 5.65 sq. mtr. per year, over and above that the Reference Court awarded interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of taking possession of the lands on additional rental amount till realization and further ordered the appellant to go on paying the increased rate of rent as per the impugned judgment and award.

3. Heard Mr. Ajay R. Mehta with Mr. Siddharth Dave, learned Counsel for the appellant, Mr. A.J. Patel with Mr. Jayesh Patel, learned Counsel for the respondent original claimant, and Mr. Alkesh N. Shah, learned Assistant Government Pleader for respondent No. 2 Special Land Acquisition Officer.

4. Learned Counsel for the appellant has submitted that the Reference Court has erred in awarding the rental compensation beyond the period of three years. It was submitted that the award passed by the Reference Court is beyond the scope and ambit of Section 35(3) of the Act as no rental compensation can be awarded for a period of more than three years. Relying upon the judgment rendered by Division Bench of this Court in the case of the Deputy General Manager vs. Patel Anil Bachubhai & Another, 2008 (2) G.L.H. 767, it was submitted that the Collector as well as the Reference Court have no jurisdiction to determine and decide the rental compensation beyond the period of three years from the date of taking possession. It was therefore contended that the Reference Court has overlooked this vital aspect and has fixed the rental compensation based upon the previous award and has passed the impugned judgment and award directing to go on paying the rent even beyond the period of three years. It was further submitted that the appellant is ready and willing to pay the rental compensation as fixed by the Reference Court along with interest @ 9% p.a. as held by the Reference Court for the period of three years from the date of taking over possession.

5. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for the respondent Special Land Acquisition Officer has also adopted the arguments made by the learned Counsel for the appellant.

6. Per contra learned Counsel for the original claimant has supported the judgment and has submitted that as the possession is not restored the Reference Court has rightly awarded the references.

No other or further submissions are made by learned Counsel for the parties.

7. At the outset it may be noted that Division Bench of this Court in the case of Deputy General Manager (supra) has clearly held that the Reference Court and/or the Land Acquisition Officer has no jurisdiction beyond the period of three years and has held thus:

“27. From the aforesaid provisions, it appears that only that Court can pass a decree for mesne profits which has jurisdiction to pass a decree for possession and in case where decree for possession is prayed. In the present case proceedings before the Reference Court is reference under sub-section (3) of Section 35 of the Act for determining dispute as to sufficiency of the compensation only. It is not