The limitation period for seeking a reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act commences from the date the ownership of the land becomes final, and consistent treatment should be given by the authorities in similar cases.

JUDGMENT :

A.J. Desai, J.

The present appeal has been filed by the State authorities challenging the judgment dated 01.08.2016 in W. P. (C) No. 17971 of 2016 by which the learned Single Judge has directed the 2nd appellant to refer the issue relating to the adequacy of compensation granted to the petitioners to the civil court for adjudication under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’).

2. Short facts that arise from the record are as under:-

Several parcels of land of the original petitioners were acquired for construction of a new railway line from Angamaly to Azhutha. Since there were rival claimants, a reference was made under Section 30 of the Act, which was numbered as LAR No. 35 of 2012. By judgment dated 12.02.2015 of the additional Sub Judge, North Paravur, the reference was decided in favour of the original petitioners and thus became final. Thereafter, the petitioners made an application dated 09.03.2015 requesting the District Collector to refer the matter under Section 18 of the Act since the petitioners were not satisfied with the amount of compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer. The District Collector refused to consider the application and hence, the petitioners filed the captioned writ petition seeking a direction to refer Ext. P2 application to the Sub Court invoking Section 18 of the Act. The learned Single Judge, after considering the material on record, allowed the writ petition directing the present appellants to refer the matter under Section 18 of the Act. Hence, this appeal.

3. Learned Senior Government Pleader appearing for the appellant State authorities would submit that the award was declared by the authority on 29.10.2010 whereas application for reference under Section 18 was made only on 09.03.2015. He would submit that the petitioners were aware of the award passed by the Land Acquisition Officer and hence, they were supposed to make an application under Section 18 for reference to the competent court which has not been done and therefore, the District Collector has rightly rejected the application. In support of his submission, the learned Senior Government Pleader has relied on the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Madan v. State of Maharashtra [2014 (1) KLT 22 (SC)] and Rajasthan Housing Board v. New Pink City Nirman Sahkari Samiti Ltd. and Another [2015 (7) SCC 601]. He therefore would submit that the appeal be allowed and the impugned judgment be quashed and set aside.

4. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the original petitioners has supported the decision of the learned Single Judge. He would submit that, objections with regard to the ownership of the land were raised by some persons and by judgment dated 12.02.2015 the civil court had found the petitioners to be the original owners of the property. Therefore, the period of limitation for requesting reference under Section 18 of the Act would start only from the date of the judgment by which the petitioners’ right over the property was established. Hence, the application dated 09.03.2015 for reference was made within the prescribed period of limitation and therefore, the learned Single Judge has committed no error.

5. He would further submit that apart from the land in question, an other parcel of the land belonging to the petitioners was also sought to be acquired and rival claims raised. There also, the reference under Section 30 was answered in favour of the petitioners. The District Collector refused to refer the application under Section 18 with respect to those lands also and therefore, another writ petition was filed by the petitioners being W. P. (C) No. 17974 of 2016. The said writ petition was also allowed by the learned Single Judge by judgment dated 01.08.2016, but that said judgment was never challenged by the State authorities even though the land is covered under the same award involved in the present petition. Subsequent to the judgment in W. P. (C