IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Right to make a reference survives award and draws sustenance from right to receive compensation for acquisition of land.
(2) In a case of land acquisition proceedings initiated under provisions of Land Acquisition Act, 1894, where no award has been made before enforcement of the Act, 2013, award shall be made under the provisions of Act, 2013.
(3) Every word used by legislature is presumed to be with a definite purpose.

JUDGMENT

N.J. Jamadar, J.—By the directions of the Hon’ble the Chief Justice, the reference is placed before this Full Bench.

2. The learned Single Judge of this Court, by judgment dated 19th October 2018, in the instant Civil Revision Application, has made the following reference to the Larger Bench for consideration :

(i) Whether under section 24(1)(b) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, the land owner or any party seeking enhancement of claim of compensation can invoke the provisions of section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 for seeking enhancement of claim of compensation even though the land acquisition award had been rendered under section 11 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 after 1st January, 2014 ?

OR

(ii) Whether any such person interested who has not accepted the award rendered after 1st January, 2014 declaring compensation under section 11 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 can seek reference by applying only to refer such claim to the Authority i.e. the “Land Acquisition Rehabilitation & Resettlement Authority” established under section 51 of the Act of 2013 ?”

3. Though the litigation, out of which the reference arises, has a long and chequered history, the background facts necessary for appreciating the circumstances in which the reference to a Larger Bench is necessitated, can be summarized as under :

The applicantMunicipal Corporation, a Local and Planning Authority, had issued a Notification dated 22nd July 2011 under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (‘The Old Act’) to acquire the land owned by the respondents for a public purpose. A declaration under section 6 of the Old Act came to be published in t`he official gazette on 20th September 2012. The Land Acquisition Act, 1894 came to be repealed by the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency In Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (‘The Act, 2013’) with effect from 1st January 2014. An award under section 11 of the Old Act was passed on 22nd December 2014. The respondentsland owners made a reference under section 18 of the Old Act to the Collector, Pune, who in turn, forwarded the said reference to the District Court, Pune. It was registered as Land Reference No. 162/2015. The applicant preferred an application questioning the tenability of the reference before the District Court under Section 18 of the Old Act. It was contended that in view of the provisions contained in sections 51, 63, 64 and 114 of the Act, 2013, the reference ought to have been made to the Authority constituted under Section 51 of the Act, 2013. The respondentsland owners countered the assertions of the applicant and contended that as the award was passed under section 11 of the Old Act, reference under section 18 thereof, was properly made to the District Court and the Reference Court had jurisdiction to entertain and decide the reference. The learned Ad. Hoc. District Judge-2, Pune, by order dated 11th April 2016, negatived the challenge to the tenability of the reference before the District Court, and held that the reference under section 18 of the Old Act was maintainable before the District Court. Being aggrieved, the applicantMunicipal Corporation preferred Revision Application.

4. In the referral judgment, the learned Single Judge noted that, on the issue raised in the said revision, as to whether the land ownersclaimants could have filed an application seeking reference under section 18 of the Old Act, though an award under section 11 thereof was rendered after 1st January 2014, there were two judgments of the Division Benches of equal strength, namely, in the cases of Jairam Gangaram Burke & Ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors., 2017 (5) Mh.L.J. 354 decided by a Division Bench at Aurangabad, and Ashok Narayan Lande Vs. State of Maharashtra, 2018 SCC Bom. 1763 decided by the Division Bench at the principal seat.

5. In the case of Jairam Gangaram Burke & Ors. (