Applications for compensation under the Land Acquisition Act must be filed within three years of the cause of action; excessive delays render such applications inadmissible.

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 22.09.2005 passed by the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Mehsana, (hereinafter referred to as the "Reference Court") in Land Acquisition Reference Nos.5789 of 2003 to 5796 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 Balol 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. 3.33 per sq. mtr. from the date of taking possession upto 31.12.1985, Rs.4/- per sq. mtr. from 1.1.1986 to 31.12.1987, Rs.4.50 per sq. mtr. from 1.1.1988 to 31.12.1990, Rs.5/- per sq. mtr. from 1.1.1991 to 31.12.1993, Rs.6.66 per sq. mtr. from 1.1.1994 to 31.12.1996, Rs.8.33 per sq. mtr. from 1.1.1997 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.0.52 per sq. mtr. respectively. Being aggrieve 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 Mr. A.V. Prajapati, learned advocate for the claimants and Ms. Roshni Patel 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 cases. 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 21.3.1983 whereas and the reference cases was filed after almost 18 years i.e. on 15.10.2001 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 c