The Reference Court exceeded its jurisdiction by awarding compensation after an excessive delay, which rendered the application time-barred under Article 137 of the Limitation Act.

JUDGMENT :

HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK, J.

1. Present appeal is filed by the appellant under Section 54 of the LAND ACQUISITION ACT , 1894 r/w Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 against the judgment and award dated 25.09.2006 passed by the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Gandhinagar, (hereinafter referred to as the "Reference Court") in Land Acquisition Reference No. 156 of 2002 whereby the reference was partly allowed and the present appellant - O.N.G.C. was held liable to pay additional amount of compensation to the original claimants along with interest and costs.

3. The short facts giving rise to present appeal is that the competent authority under the LAND ACQUISITION ACT made a proposal for temporary acquisition of the lands situated at village Shertha, Taluka and District Gandhinagar, belonging to the respondents-original claimants. After following due procedure, the Land Acquisition Officer has passed award under Section 11 of the Act on 23.3.1988 and fixed the rate of rent of Rs.0.82/- per Sq. Mtr.

3.1. However, being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the award, the original claimants raised dispute, by way of references being Land Acquisition Reference No. 156 of 2002. The Reference Court partly allowed the Reference Case by way of the impugned judgment and award and awarded additional amount of rental compensation @ Rs. 5.50 per sq. mtr.. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the same, the appellant has preferred present appeal.

4. Heard Ms. Aishwarya Reddy, learned advocate for M/s. Trivedi and Gupta for the appellant and Ms. Roshni Patel, learned AGP for respondent No.2.

5. Ms. Reddy, learned Counsel for the appellant-ONGC, has submitted that the impugned judgment and award passed by the Reference Court is erroneous, unjust and against the settled principle of law. She has submitted that the jurisdiction of Reference Court under Section 35 (3) of the LAND ACQUISITION ACT is limited to determining questions of sufficiently of compensation and that too only in case of a difference between the Collector and persons interested that arose at the relevant point of time. Learned advocate for the appellant has submitted that the reference court has no power to consider the compensation beyond the period of three years. She has submitted that the reference court has committed serious error while allowing all the reference case. She has submitted that there was inordinate delay in filing reference cases. She has submitted that the original award passed by the Special Land Acquisition Officer on 23.3.1988 whereas the reference cases was filed after almost 12 years i.e. on 15.12.2000 and therefore it was time barred and the said cases are liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay alone. With regard to limitation, learned counsel for the appellant relied on the decision of this Court in the case of Oil & Natural Gas Corporation Ltd. vs Sankarji Hemaji & Anr. reported in 2008 2 GLR 1226 . She has submitted that even the reference court has no jurisdiction to condone the delay beyond the period of three years, when the acquisition is of temporary usage of the land, under Section 35 (3) of the LAND ACQUISITION ACT . She has submitted that without considering the facts of the case, the reference court has passed the impugned judgment and award in favour of the opponent original claimants. She has also submitted that even the reference Court has also exceeded jurisdiction while awarding interest beyond a period of three years, because when the Court has no power to award the compensation beyond period of three years, there is no question of awarding