The Reference Court lacks jurisdiction to grant compensation claims filed beyond the statutory limitation period under Section 35(3) of the Land Acquisition Act, with any contrary findings deemed ultra vires.

JUDGMENT :

HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK, J.

1. All these appeals involve common questions on law and facts and therefore, they are disposed of by this common judgment.

2. These appeals have been filed against the common judgment and award dated 18.08.2005 passed by the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Mehsana, (hereinafter referred to as the "Reference Court") in Land Acquisition Reference Nos.819 of 2003 to 826 of 2003 whereby the References were 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 are that the competent authority under the LAND ACQUISITION ACT made a proposal for temporary acquisition of the lands at village Bhatariya, Ta.:Viramgam (Detroj), District Mehsana, belonging to the respondents-original claimants. After following due procedure, the lands came to be acquired. Award came to be passed by the competent authority fixing the amount of compensation.

3.1. However, being dissatisfied with the award, the original claimants raised dispute, by way of references. The Reference Court partly allowed the Reference Cases by way of the impugned judgment and award awarding Rs. 8.33 per sq. mtr. from the date of taking possession (i.e. 25.3.1987) upto 31.12.1997, Rs.9/- per sq. mtr. from 1.1.1998 to 31.12.1999, Rs.10 per sq. mtr. from 1.1.2000 to 31.12.2002, Rs.12/- per sq. mtr. from 1.1.2003 to 31.12.2004, and thereafter, Rs.15/- per sq. mtr from 1.1.2005 onwards as against the amount of Rs.1.50 per sq. mtr. respectively. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the same, the appellant has preferred these appeals. 4. Heard Ms. Aishwarya Reddy, learned advocate for M/s. Trivedi and Gupta for the appellant and Ms. Agneya Mankad, learned Assistant Government Pleader for respondent No.2.

Though served, none has remained present on behalf of the respondent No.1 – original claimant.

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 sufficiency 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 cases. She has submitted that in light of escalating interest rates levied every three years, this Court in First Appeal No.867- 874 of 2007, ONGC vs. Patel Somabhai Prabhudas & Anr., dated 08.07.2015, has held as follows :

“14. So far as the direction issued with regard to the interest is concerned, as it is not permanent acquisition but it was temporary acquisition and therefore, the interest cannot be awarded under Section 28 of the LIMITATION ACT , as if it is a regular acquisition. Therefore, the direction issued qua interest also deserves to be quashed and set aside and the same is hereby quashed and set aside.”

5.1 Ms. Reddy, learned advocate for the appellant has submitted that in light of the directions issued by this Court, the only escalation in rent/compensation permissible is after the completion of three years from the date of possession taken by ONGC. She has submitted that the direction o