JUDGMENT :

M. K. THAKKER, J.

1. Since the issue raised in the these appeals are similar, they are being decided by a common judgment. The facts of First Appeal No.29 of 2025 are taken for the purpose of adjudication.

2. The present appeal is filed by the claimant under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (‘the Act’ referred hereinafter) read with Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, challenging the judgment and award dated 15.12.2023 passed in LAR No.178 of 2017 by the learned Additional Senior Civil Judge, Shehra, District Panchmahals, whereby the learned Reference Court has dismissed the Reference on the ground of limitation.

Factual Matrix:

3. The land belonging to the claimant, situated at village Khatakpur, Taluka Shehra, District Panchmahals, came to be acquired by the opponents for the purpose of construction of a lake by issuance of a notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act on 08.07.1999. The award under Section 11(1) of the Act was thereafter passed by the Special Land Acquisition Officer on 18.02.2000, whereby the market value of the land under acquisition was determined at the rate of Rs.42,000/- per hectare. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the determination made by the Special Land Acquisition Officer, the claimant preferred an application under Section 18 of the Act on 04.10.2000, which came to be referred to the learned Reference Court on 24.03.2003. The learned Reference Court, while adjudicating the reference proceedings, framed the following issues and answered the same accordingly:

Issues

(1) Whether the compensation awarded by the special land acquisition officer is unfair and inadequate?

Answer is Affirmative.

(2) If yes, what should be the amount of additional compensation to be awarded to the claimants?

Answer is Affirmative.

(3) Whether the opponents prove that the reference filed by the applicants is barred by limitation?

Answer is Affirmative.

(4) What order and award?

Answer is as per final order.

3.1 Though the learned Reference Court answered the issue regarding the compensation awarded by the Special Land Acquisition Officer being unfair and inadequate in the affirmative and proceeded to determine the additional compensation, the reference proceedings ultimately came to be rejected on the ground that the reference was filed beyond the prescribed period of limitation. The said finding on limitation is the subject-matter of challenge before this Court.

4. Heard the learned advocate Mr. D.V. Kansara for the appellant, learned advocate Mr. Tanmay Karia for respondent No.2 and learned AGP Ms. Himani Shah for respondent-State.

Submissions on behalf of the learned advocate for the appellant:

5. Learned advocate Mr. Kansara submitted that the learned Reference Court committed a serious error in framing additional issues on 14.09.2022 after the parties had already filed their respective closing pursis on 16.12.2022. Learned advocate Mr. Kansara further submitted that when the issues were initially framed, no issue with regard to limitation was framed. In absence of such an issue, no opportunity was afforded to the parties to lead evidence on the question of limitation. It is submitted by learned advocate Mr. Kansara that the learned Reference Court, on its own, framed an issue regarding limitation at a belated stage and thereafter proceeded to dismiss the Reference by holding that the application under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act was filed beyond the prescribed period of limitation. The learned Reference Court held that since the claimant had received the compensation on the very date of the award, i.e. 18.02.2000, the claimant had knowledge of the award. Learned advocate Mr. Kansara submitted that it was specifically pleaded in the reference application that the claimants were neither present at the time of the award nor had knowledge of the contents thereof, and that the said plea remained unchallenged and unrebutted by the opponents. Despite this, the learned Referenc