FA/225120/2006 1/4 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD FIRST APPEAL No. 2251 of 2006 To FIRST APPEAL No. 2255 of 2006 For Approval and Signature: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI ========================================================= 1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ? 3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ? 4 Whether this case involves a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the constitution of India, 1950 or any order made thereunder ? 5 Whether it is to be circulated to the civil judge ? ========================================================= GENERAL MANAGER - Appellant(s) Versus THAKOR HIRAJI AMTHAJI & 1 - Defendant(s) ========================================================= Appearance : MR RR MARSHALL for Appellant(s) : 1, RULE SERVED for Defendant(s) : 1 - 2. GOVERNMENT PLEADER for Defendant(s) : 2, ========================================================= CORAM : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI Date : 04/08/2008 ORAL JUDGMENT 1. These appeals are directed against the judgment and award dated FA/225120/2006 2/4 JUDGMENT 31.08.2005 passed by the learned Principal Sr. Civil Judge, Mehsana in Land Reference Cases No. 3637/2003 to 3641/2003 whereby, the said cases were partly allowed. 2. The land of the respondents – claimants were proposed to be acquired for a temporary period by the appellant under the provisions of Section 35 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. After completion of all the legal formalities, the appellant passed the order dated 02.03.1984 in Compensation Case No. 127 of 1983 granting compensation of Rs.0.40 per sq. metre. Against the said award, the claimants preferred applications, which, came to be referred to the Court below by way of references. The reference Court, after appreciating the evidence on record, partly allowed the references by enhancing the amount of compensation. Being aggrieved by the said award, the appellant has preferred these appeals. 3. Learned Advocate for the appellant submitted that the issue involved in these appeals is squarely covered by the ratio laid down in the case of Oil & Natural Gas Corporation Ltd. Vs. Sankarji Hemaji & Anr. reported in [2008] 17 GHJ (523). The operative part of the said judgment reads as under: “41. Similarly, event he conduct and the action of the then Special Land Acquisition Officer, who has referred the references applications in more than 100 cases to the reference court, though the applications for reference were filed after a period of more than 20 years, is also required to be considered seriously at the hands of Government. Under the circumstances, Chief Secretary, Revenue Department is directed to hold necessary inquiry against the concerned Special Land Acquisition Officer with regard to his conduct FA/225120/2006 3/4 JUDGMENT and actions. Registry is directed to communicate this order to the Chief Secretary, Revenue Department, State of Gujarat for compliance. 42. For the reasons stated herein above, all the appeals succeed and are allowed with costs which is quantified at Rs.5000/- (Rupees Five Thousand only) per each appeal. The impugned common judgment and award dated 15.10.2005 passed by the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Mehsana (Mr. J.R. Shah) inland Reference Case Nos.3780 to 3784 of 2003 is hereby quashed and set aside and it is held that: [i] The reference applications submitted by the original claimants were not maintainable. [ii] The reference applications were required to be dismissed on the ground of limitation considering Article 137 of the Limitation Act. In the alternate, the same were required to be dismissed on the ground of delay and latches. [iii] The reference court has no jurisdiction to decide any other question except the difference as to sufficiency of compensation in a reference under sec.35(3) of the Act. [iv] The reference court has no jurisdiction to decide any other question except the difference as to sufficiency of compensation in a reference under section 35(3) of the Act. [v] The reference court has no jurisdiction to declare acquisition proceedings and the award declared by the Special Land Acquisition Officer under sec.35(3) of the Act as illegal and/or non-est in a reference under section 35(3) of the Act. [vi] The reference court has no jurisdiction to declare possession of the acquiring body as illegal and/or unauthorized and consequently the reference court has no jurisdiction to declare the ONGC-acquiring body as trespasser that too without framing any issue. FA/225120/2006 4/4 JUDGMENT [vii] The reference court has no jurisdiction toward compensation by way of mesne profit declaring compensation of the acquiring body as illegal and unauthorized. [viii] The reference court has also no jurisdiction to award statutory benefits and or interest, as awarded by the reference court, as if the acquisition proceedings is a permanent acquisition. [ix] The reference court has no jurisdiction to determine the dispute with regard to sufficiency of the compensation beyond the period of three years from the date of taking the possession. [x] The Reference Court has no jurisdiction to restore the possession of the land to the original owners while deciding the reference under sec.35(3) of the Act.” 4. Admittedly, the reference Court has not considered the aspects of jurisdiction as also limitation and other questions as set out in the aforesaid judgment. In that view of the matter, the impugned award of the reference Court cannot be sustained. This proposition is not disputed by the learned Advocate for the respondents. 5. In the premises aforesaid, these appeals are allowed. The judgment and award impugned in these appeals is quashed and set aside. The appeals stand disposed of accordingly. No order as to costs. [K.S. JHAVERI, J.] Pravin/*