IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 2.3.2007 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE P.D.DINAKARAN AND THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE P.P.S.JANARTHANA RAJA A.S.No.945 & 946 of 2004 The Special Tahsildar & Land Acquisition Officer Tamil Nadu Housing Scheme Appellant in Nandanam, Chennai 35. .. both appeals/Referring Officer Vs. Thilagam .. R1 in AS No. 945/04 & R3 in AS No.946/04/Claimant Duraivelu Thambiran Manimekalai R1, R2, R4 & R5 Sivakumar .. in AS No.946/04/Claimant The Chairman R2 in AS No. Tamil Nadu Housing Board 945/04 & R6 in Nandanam, Chennai 600 035. .. AS No.946/04/Beneficiary ----- Appeal filed u/s 554 of Land Acquisition Act against the order dated 25.11.2003 made in LAOP Nos.47 and 48 of 1993 on the file of Additional District Juage and Fast Track Court No.4, Poonamallee. ----- For Appellant : Mr.V.Ravi, Spl.G.P. For Tamil Nadu Housing Board : Mr.K. Chelladurai For Respondents/ Mr.M.Venkatachalapathy, S.C. Claimants : For Mr.R.Mahalingam ----- J U D G M E N T (Delivered by P.D.DINAKARAN, J) The above appeals are directed against the order dated 25.11.2003 made in LAOP Nos.47 and 48 of 1993 on the file of Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court No.4), Poonamallee. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ FACTS OF THE CASE 2.1. The Tamil Nadu Housing Board, by its resolution No.385 dated 29.7.1973 resolved to acquire lands for the purpose of providing housing facilities to the industrial workers in and around Ambattur area under Ambattur Neighbourhood Scheme. Accordingly, the lands of an extent of 56 cents and 115 cents located in Survey Nos.513/2 and 566, Ambattur Village and Taluk, Tiruvallur District were acquired, pursuant to the notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") published in the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette on 12.11.1975 and enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act conducted on 29.3.1976 and 30.3.1976. 2.2. After complying with the procedure contemplated under the Act and relying upon two documents even dated 22.11.1973 with regard to the lands of an extent of 22 cents and 11 cents respectively located in Survey No.561/B, the Land Acquisition Officer, by Award Nos.4 and 6 of 1986 dated 23.9.1986 fixed the compensation at Rs.545/- per cent. 2.3. Aggrieved by the said compensation, the claimants have filed petitions in LAOP Nos.47 and 48 of 1993 under Section 18 of the Act, seeking additional compensation with respect to their lands acquired. 2.4. In the meanwhile, the Land Acquisition Officer filed an interim application in I.A.Nos.1217 and 1218 of 1996 in LAOP Nos.47 and 48 of 1993 to declare that the reference made by the Referring Officer is null and void, illegal and unenforceable and to permit withdrawal of the above reference on the ground that the respondents/claimants prepared fictitious applications in connivance with the officials. The said interim applications were dismissed by the learned Fast Track Court Judge, Poonamallee, by order dated 16.9.2003. 2.5. The learned Fast Track Court Judge, by order dated 25.11.2003, placing reliance on Ex.C1 dated 15.3.1973 with respect to the land of an extent of 3672 sq.ft. in Survey No.600, enhanced the award of Rs.545/- per cent to Rs.4,571/-. Aggrieved by the same, the Land Acquisition Officer has filed the above appeals. CONTENTIONS ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT 3.1. The learned Special Government Pleader vehemently contends that the reliance placed by the Fast Track Court Judge on Ex.C1 dated 15.3.1973 is unjustified, as the said land located in Survey No.600 cannot be compared with the land acquired in S.Nos.513/2 and 566, as it is far away from the land in question, whereas the data land, which is located in Survey No.561/B, is very nearer to the lands acquired in the above appeals. 3.2. It is also contended that in view of the bar under Section 18(2) of the Act, the application seeking reference under Section 18 of the Act is liable to be dismissed, as, the award was passed on 23.9.1986 and the respondents/claimants had chosen to file an application for reference only on 21.1.1993, i.e. nearly after seven years, which they ought to have filed within six weeks from the date of the award. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3.3. To buttress the above contentions, learned Special Government Pleader placed reliance on the decisions in (i)Mohd. Hasnuddin v. State of Maharashtra ((1979) 2 SCC 572); (iii)Officer on Special Duty (Land Acqn.) v. Shah Manilal Chandulal ((1996) 9) SCC 414); and (v)State of Karnataka v. Laxuman (2005 (8) Supreme 49 = 2005 (8) Scale 760). 3.4. In CMP Nos.8653 and 8654 of 2006 in A.S.Nos.945 and 946 of 2004 respectively, the learned Special Government Pleader seeks the permission of this Court to raise additional grounds, viz., (a) the Court below ought to have rejected the application of the respondents/claimants for reference under Section 18 of the Act as the same has been submitted beyond the statutory period of six weeks as per section 18(2) of the Act; and (b) the Court below ought not to have entertained the reference nearly after seven years. CONTENTIONS ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS/CLAIMANTS 4.1. Per contra, Mr.M.Venkatachalapathy, learned senior counsel appearing for the respondents/claimants, apart from justifying the amount awarded by the Court below, contends that the reliance placed on the document dated 15.3.1973 with respect to an extent of 3672 sq.ft. by the Court below is correct. 4.2. The learned senior counsel further contends that the impugned award amount at the rate of Rs.4,571/- per cent is also aided with the decision of the Sub Court dated 5.1.1990 made in LAOP No.208 of 1987, which also arose under the same acquisition proceedings. 4.3. On the question of law, learned senior counsel contends that even though the appellant has taken applications in I.A.Nos.1217 and 1218 of 1996 before the Court below to withdraw the above reference on the ground that the reference was made to the Court on 21.1.1993 nearly after seven years of passing of the award on 23.8.1986, the said contention was rejected by the learned Fast Track Court Judge, by order dated 16.9.2003 made in I.A.Nos.1217 & 1218 of 1996, after having accepted the case of the respondents/ claimants that the appellant sent the reference to the Court after a considerable delay and such default on the part of the appellant cannot be put against respondents/claimants. 4.4. The learned senior counsel further contends that if there is no entry in the Register maintained by the appellant, the appellant alone can be found fault with, but not the respondents/claimants and no mala fide can be attributed against the respondents/claimants for manipulation of records. 4.5. The learned senior counsel, inviting our attention to the order dated 16.9.2003 in I.A.Nos.1217 & 1218 of 1996, would argue that assuming the appellant has got any grievance against the said order, the appellant ought to have challenged the same in revision or in any appropriate proceedings and having failed to do so, the said order has become final https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ and accordingly, it is binding and therefore, the appellant is not entitled to contend now that the application for reference under Section 18(1) itself is neither barred as per Section 18(2) nor the proceedings initiated and the award are a nullity in the eye of law. 4.6. In any event, the learned senior counsel contends that there is no need to interfere with the award as the same is purely based on the award passed in identical matters and therefore, the respondents/claimants are entitled to the amount awarded by the Court below in the order dated 25.11.2003, even as per Section 28A of the Act and therefore, the technical objection made by the appellant based on the limitation is not sustainable in law. 4.7. To strengthen the above contentions, learned senior counsel relied on the judgments cited below: (i)Ram Kali Bhattacharjee v. State of West Bengal (1995 Supp. (3) SCC 314); (iii)Kaushalya Devi v. State of Punjab (2000 (1) LACC 462); (v)Neki Ram v. State of Haryana (2001 (2) LACC 359); (vii)State of Tripura v. Roopchand Das ((2003) 1 SCC 421); and (ix)Union of India v. Munshi Ram ((2006) 4 SCC 538). 5. We have given our careful consideration to the submissions made by both sides and also perused the records. POINTS FOR CONSIDERATION 6. The points that arise for our consideration, are thus: (i) Whether the reference made under Section 18(1), adjudicated and awarded by the Court below by order dated 25.11.2003 in LAOP Nos.47 & 48 of 1993 is barred by limitation prescribed under Section 18(2) of the Act and whether such question can be gone into in the present appeal when I.A.Nos.1217 & 1218 of 1996 preferred by the appellant to withdraw the reference was rejected by the Court below by order dated 16.9.2003, which was not challenged by the appellant either in revision or in any other manner known to law? and (ii) Whether the amount awarded by the Court below is sustainable on merits? POINT (i) 7.1. "Whether the reference made under Section 18(1), adjudicated and awarded by the Court below by order dated 25.11.2003 in LAOP Nos.47 & 48 of 1993 is barred by limitation prescribed under Section 18(2) of the Act and whether such question can be gone into in the present appeal when https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ I.A.Nos.1217 & 1218 of 1996 preferred by the appellant to withdraw the reference was rejected by the Court below by order dated 16.9.2003, which was not challenged by the appellant either in revision or in any other manner known to law?" 7.2. It is true, the Apex Court, in Ram Kali Bhattacharjee v. State of West Bengal (1995 Supp. (3) SCC 314) was dealing with a case where a Division Bench of Calcutta High Court noticed that the reference applications were made beyond limitation and therefore, the award of the Civil Court was without jurisdiction. In the said circumstances, the Apex Court has held that it is not desirable to decide the controversy without any factual foundation and remitted the matter to the Reference Court to decide whether the reference applications were made within limitation in accordance with law and if the finding is in favour of the claimant, then to decide the compensation according to law. 7.3.1. In Kaushalya Devi v. State of Punjab (2000 (1) LACC 462), the claimant/lady, who sought enhancement of the award, was called upon by the Land Acquisition Collector to produce the proof for her acceptance of compensation under protest and that the reference under Section 18 of the Act was filed within time. But the claimant was never conveyed that her application for making the reference was declined. It is, under that context, the Division Bench of Punjab & Haryana High Court held that every person whose lands stand acquired has an inherent right to get enhanced compensation if the competent court wants to increase the same and that the Land Acquisition Collector wrongly ordered that the reference was time barred, as the claimant was not able to furnish the proof of her having accepted the amount under protest. 7.3.2. The above decision is not applicable to the facts of the case, as, in the instant case, the Land Acquisition Officer, in the proceedings initiated under Section 18(2) based on a reference, of course, forwarded by the then Land Acquisition Officer, has taken specific pleas that (a) the application for reference itself is not available, (b) there is no entry in the relevant register maintained for the receipt of the reference application, (c) there was manipulation of records by the vested interested officer in forwarding the so called copy of the reference applications, (d) xerox copy of the said proceedings does not contain the signature of any officer, and (e) neither the certified copies nor the xerox copies of the applications filed by the respective claimants in the matter were enclosed along with the proceedings which forms the basis for initiating reference. On the other hand, what was enclosed are Exs.R6 & R7, which appear to be only the xerox copy of the statements dated 22.8.1986 and 17.2.1986, which is earlier to the passing of the award and the statement recorded by the Land Acquisition Officer dated 12.11.1986, which is after passing of the award. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 7.4. In O.P.No.47 of 1993, the statement made by Thilagam dated 22.8.1986, Ex.R6, which is prior to the passing of the award reads as follows: "br';fw;gl;L rpy;yh irjhg;ngl;il jhYfh mk;gj;J}h; fpuhkj;jpy; vdf;Fr; brhe;jkhft[s;s fPH;fz;l tptug;gof;fhd epyj;ijj; jkpH;ehL tPl;L trjp thhpak;. ee;jdk;. brd;id 35y; (ep/v/4) mYtyfj;jpy; nkw;go Mh;$pj eltof;iffs; Fwpj;J vdf;F nehl;OR mDg;gpajd; nghpy; ehd; fPH;fz;l tptu';fs; bjhptpf;fyhndd;/ mk;gj;J}h; fpuhkk; r/vz;/513-2 tp!;jPuzk; V 0/56 brz;L nkw;go epyj;ij ehnd fpuak; bgw;W mDgtpj;J tUfpnwd;/ ,e;j epyj;ij bfhul;L:h; fpuhkj;jpy; ,Uf;Fk; jpU/fe;jrhkp Kjypahh; vd;gthplk; tpw;gjw;fhf bra;Jbfhz;l mf;hpbkz;Lg;go U:/2000-? ,uz;lhapuk; kl;Lk; ehd; bgw;Wf;bfhz;lJ th!;jtk;/ nkw;go epyj;jpw;F jkpH;ehL tPl;L trjp thhpaj;jpy; ec&;l <lhf brz;L 1f;F U:gha; 545-? tPjKk; mjpy; 40# mgptpUj;jpr; brytpw;fhft[k; rPh;jpUj;jr; brytpw;fhft[k; fHpj;Jk; 30# brhnyc&pak;. 12# TLjy; bra;Jk; bfhLf;fg;gl ,Uf;Fk; tpguk; bjhpe;J bfhz;nld;/ jw;bghGJ. brz;L U:gha; 2000-?f;F nky; tpw;gidahfpwJ/ vdnt me;j tpfpjj;jpy; ec&;l <Lj; bjhifia vd;dplnk tH';FkhW nfl;Lf;bfhs;fpnwd;/ mry; gj;jpuk; kl;Lk; nkw;fz;l fe;jrhkp Kjypahhplk; bfhLj;Js;nsd;/ ,e;j epyj;jpy; fpzh;. gk;g[brl;. ku';fs; VJk; fpilahJ/ fhyp epyk;/ tptrhak; bra;J tUfpnwd;/ ,e;j epyk; vd; rnfhjuh;fs; bfhLj;j gzj;ij itj;J vd; bgahpy; fpuak; bgw;nwd;/ vdpDk; ,e;j epyj;jpy; vd;idj; jtpu ntW ahUf;Fk; chpik ,;y;iy/ ,e;j epyj;jpd; ec&;l <Lj; bjhifia vd;dplnk bfhLf;FkhWk; nfl;Lf;bfhs;fpnwd;/ thhpRjhuh; tpguk;: 1) jpyfk; Self 49 2) K.Rg;ukz;ak; fzth; 56 3) kzpnkfyh kfs; 21 jpUkzkhfptpl;lJ 4) rptFkhh; kfd; 6 nkw;go brhj;jpy; Kd;gf;fj;jpy; bjhptpj;j tpgug;go jtpu ntW tpy;y';fk; VJk; , y;iybad;Wk; bjhptpj;Jf;bfhs;fpnwd;. gof;ff; nfl;nld;/ rhpahf cs;sJ/" (emphasis supplied) 7.5. Similarly, the statement made by Thilagam dated 12.11.1986, Ex.R6, which is after passing of the award, reads as follows: "irij jhYfh. 72 mk;gj;J}h; fpuhkj;jpy; rh;nt vz;/513-2y; cs;s 0/56 Vf;fuh epyj;ij jdp tl;lhl;rpah; (ep/v) 4. ;ee;jdk; brd;di 35 mth;fshy; mthh;L vz; 4-86 ehs; 22/9/86d; cj;jut[g;go jkpH;ehL tPl;L trjp thhpaj;jpw;fhf vLj;Jf; bfhs;sg;gl;l tptuj;ij bjhpe;J bfhz;nld;/ ,e;j epyk; mh;Rdg;gps;is ghhpahs; gj;khtjpak;khs;. mh;Rdg;gps;is Fkhuh; gr;irag;gps;is Mfpa ,UthplkpUe;J Rj;j fpuak; bgw;wjhFk;/ ,th;fs; ,we;J tpl;ldh;/ ,e;j brhj;J 1963k; tUc&k; khh;r; khjk; 7e; njjp vGjpf; bfhLj;j tpLjiyg; https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ gj;jpug; gpufhuk; tpakhh;. ghfj;Jf;F te;j brhj;ij ehd; 14/3/1973 md;W 646k; bek;guhf gjpt[ bra;ag;gl;Ls;sJ/ mJ Kjw bfhz;L vd; mDgtj;jpy; cs;sJ/ ,e;j epyk; vdf;F KG chpikahFk;/ ,e;j epyj;Jf;fhd xhp$pdy; gj;jpuj;ij jhf;fy; bra;Js;nsd;/ ,e;j epyj;ij fhl;o. gjpt[ bra;ag;glhj xU mf;hpbkz;L K:yk; bfhul;L:hpy; trpf;Fk; jpU/fe;jrhkp @ ghh;jjrhujp vd;gthplk; U:/2000-? a epyj;j tpw;gjw;F ml;thd;rhf bfw;Wf; bfhz;lij jtpu ntW tpy;y';fk; ,e;j epyj;jpd; nky; vJt [kpy;iy/ ,e;j mf;hpbkz;l; hp$p!;jh; bra;ag;glhj xd;whifahy;. mjw;Fk;. ,e;j ec&;l <l;Lj; bjhif th';Ftjw;Fk; ve;jtpj rk;ke;jkpy;iy/ ,e;j epyj;Jf;Fz;lhd gj;jpuj;ij jhf;fy; bra;Js;nsd;/ nkw;fz;o epyj;Jf;fhd ec&;l <l;Lj; bjhif U:/47700/50 f;fhd C ghuk; brf;if bgw;Wf; bfhz;nld;/ ,dp ,e;j epyj;jpy; gpuntrpf;f khl;nld;/ gpuntrpj;jhy; fphpkpdy; eltof;if vLf;fyhk; vd;gija[k; bjhpe;J bfhz;nld;/ gof;ff; nfl;nld;-rhp/ 12/11/1986 (emphasis supplied) 7.6. In both the above statements dated 22.8.1986 and 12.11.1986 made by Thilagam, respondent/claimant, she has stated that she had entered into an agreement to sell the impugned land to one Kandaswamy of Korattur Village for a total sum of Rs.2,000/- and that she had the knowledge that the respondent Board proposed to pay the compensation at Rs.545/- per cent and the sale price of the impugned land was about Rs.2,000/- per cent and received an advance of Rs.2,000/-. 7.7. In O.P.No.48 of 1993, the statement made by Subramanian dated 17.2.1986 prior to the passing of award, reads as follows: nkw;fz;l epyj;ij vd; kidtp jpyfk; bgahpy; th';fpndd;/ kfd; gr;ir gps;isaplk; mth; jha; gj;khtjpak;khsplk; 1973y; jpyfj;jpw;F th';fg;gl;lJ/ nkw;fz;l gj;jpuj;ij bfhul;L:h; mt[rp'; nghh;L tPl;oy; FoapUf;Fk; ghh;j;jrhujp vd;fpw fe;jrhkp Kjypf;F xU mf;hpbkz;L vGjp U:/2000-? bgw;Wf;bfhz;L gj;jpuj;ija[k; mthplk; bfhLj;J tpl;nld;/ epyk; vd; RthjPdj;jpy; cs;sJ/ jw;rkak; gaph; itj;Js;nsd;/ nkw;fz;l epyj;jpw;F jkpH;ehL tPl;L trjp thhpak; brz;L 1?f;F U:/545-? tPjKk; ,jpy; 40# rjtPjk; rPh; jpUj;jk; kw;Wk; mgptpUj;jp Kjypatw;wpw;F bfhLf;fg;gLk; vd;W bjhpe;Jf;bfhz;nld;/ nkw;go ec&;l <l;Lj; bjhif kpft[k; Fiwt[/ Mfnt brz;L xd;W U:/1200-? tPjk; bfhLf;Fk;go nfhUfpnwd;/ vd; kidtpf;F fPH;f;fz;l thhpRfs; cs;sdh;/ 1) Rg;ukzpak; (fztd;) 55 2) rptf;Fkhh; (kfd;) 5 nkw;fz;l epyj;jpy; fl;ol';fnsh. ku';fnsh. fpznwh VJk; ,y;iy/ nkw;brhd;d fe;jrhkpia jtpu ntW ahUf;Fk; epyj;jpd; kPJ fld;fs; th';ftpy;iy/ nkw;go ec&;l <l;Lj; bjhifia vd;dplnk bfhLf;f nfhUfpnwd;/ ,e;j !;nll;bkz;il bfhLf;fpnwd;/ nehl;Orpy; r/be/522-7 nrh;j;J bfhLj;Js;shh;fs;/ ,e;j epyk; vdf;nfh. vd; kidtpf;nfh VJk; chpik fpilahJ// (emphasis supplied) https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 7.8. Similarly, in the statement dated 17.2.1986, Subramanian, respondent/claimant has stated that the impugned lands were purchased in the name of his wife Thilagam and she had entered into an agreement with one Kandaswamy for the sale price of Rs.2,000/- per cent and received an advance of Rs.2,000/-. 7.9. The above referred to exhibits, viz. Exs.R6 & R7 alone form basis for reference. Ex.R6, statements of Thilagam, prior to the award and after the award, carries the left thumb impression of Thilagam. 7.10. Ex.R7, statement of Subramanian, was enclosed with the covering letter dated 21.1.1993, which is a part of Ex.R7, reads as follows: "kog;gghf;fk; vz;/5 bghd;dpak;kd; nfhtpy; bjUtpy; trpf;Fk; rpd;dfd;dp ehaf;fh; Fkhuh; f/Rg;ukzpak; mth;fs; 26/11/86 md;W epy Mh;$[pj jhrpy;jhh; mth;fSf;F mDg;gpa kDtpd; efy;/ Iah. Irjhg;ngl;ilj; jhYf;fh be/72 mk;gj;J}h; fpuhkj;jpd; rh;nt vz;fs; 1/ 566-1v 0/56 2/ 566-1gp 0/26 3/ 566-1rp 0/28 4/ 566-2v 0/02 1-2 5/ 566-2gp 0/1 1-2 epyk; vdf;Frr; brhe;jkhdJ/ nkw;go vdf;Fr; brhe;jkhd epy';fis tPl;L trjp thhpaj;jpw;fhf murh';fk; Mh;$pjk; bra;Js;sJ/ epyj;ij Mh;$pjk; bra;tjw;fhf bfhLj;j 4(1) nehl;OR njjpf;F Kd;ng Mh;$pjk; bra;j epyk; brd;l; U:/7000/- (VG Mapuj;Jf;F) nky; bgWk;/ Mfnt jh';fs; eph;zak; bra;Js;s tpiy epahakhdjy;y/ Mfnt jh';fs; vd;dplk; Mh;$pjk; bra;j epyj;jpw;F brd;l; Xd;Wf;F U:/7000-? (U:/VG Mapuk; kl;Lk;) vd;W tpiy eph;zak; bra;J bfhLf;Fk;go nfl;Lf;bfhs;fpd;nwd;/ ,y;iybad;why; vd;Dila nfir nfhh;l;ow;F tpiy eph;zak; bra;a mDg;g[k;gof; nfl;Lf;bfhs;fpnwd;/ ,g;gof;F. nf/Rg;gpukzp/ -cz;ik efy;- jdp tl;lhl;rpah; (ep/v/) MyU 4 jkpH;ehL tPl;L trjp thhpak; jpUk';fyk;. brd;id?101/ 7.11. The above said covering letter did not contain any signature of the Tahsildar nor any reference. In the said letter, even though it is stated that the claimant demanded compensation at Rs.7,000/- per cent, no such averment was made in the statement given by Subramanian, which was enclosed therewith. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 7.12. However, the appellant, in his proceedings dated 28.4.1995, as evident from the relevant files, has stated as follows: "In Award No.4/86 dt.22.9.86 an extent of 0.56 acre in S.No.513/2 belonging to Tmt.Thilagam w/o K.Subramaniam and in Award No.6/86 dt.23.9.86. The lands measuring 0.56 acre in S.No.566/1A, 0.26 acre in S.No.566/1B, 0.28 acre in S.No.566/D, 0.02½ acre in S.No.566/2A and 0.02½ acre in S.No.566/2B belonging to Thiru K.Subramaniam s/o Chinnakanni Naicker were acquired. As per the official records there is no indication in the connected register about filing application under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act by the land owners. It is seen that the separate applications have been prepared during January 93 i.e. after a lapse of six years as if prepared during November 86 and referred the applications to the Sub Court, Poonamallee during January 93 and the Sub Court also assigned LAOP Nos.47/93 and 48/93. The irregularity was found and the Government was addressed for appropriate orders in the matter." 7.13. But, these vital factors were not taken into consideration by the learned Fast Track Court Judge, while dismissing I.A.Nos.1217 & 1218 of 1996, by order dated 16.9.2003. The prayer in I.A.Nos.1217 & 1218 of 1996 was to declare the reference made by the Referring Officer as null and void, illegal and unenforceable and for permission to withdraw the above reference. The said applications were rejected by the Court below by an order dated 16.9.2003 and thereafter, by order dated 25.11.2003 in LAOP Nos.47 and 48 of 1993, the compensation was enhanced to Rs.4,571/- from Rs.545/- per cent. Of course, the appellant had not challenged the order dated 16.9.2003 made in I.A.Nos.1217 & 1218 of 1996. But, the appellant has now filed CMPs to raise additional grounds in the present appeals, viz. (i) the Court below ought to have rejected the application of the respondents/claimants for reference under Section 18 of the Act as the same has been submitted beyond the statutory period of six weeks as per section 18(2) of the Act; and (ii) the Court below ought not to have entertained the reference nearly after seven years. What all the appellant contended in the said I.As. are that the applications for reference made under section 18(1) of the Act are not maintainable in law as the same were barred by limitation. Since the said contention is purely a legal point, which goes to the very root of the jurisdiction of the Court, in our considered opinion, even without challenging the order dated 16.9.2003 made in I.A.Nos.1217 & 1218 of 1996, appellants are still entitled to agitate the point before this Court, as the said issue gets merged with the order in appeal and falls within the purview of the appeal. Therefore it may not be proper for this court to refuse to go into the question of jurisdiction of the Court below to entertain the above O.P., when the application for reference itself is barred by limitation. Hence, we allow the CMPs, permitting to raise the additional grounds. Accordingly, the CMPs are ordered. 7.14. In Kaushalya Devi v. State of Punjab (2000 (1) LACC 462), the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Punjab & Haryana High Court has observed that the claimant was not able to furnish any proof of her having accepted the amount under protest and that the Land Acquisition Collector wrongly ordered the reference as time barred. But, in the instant case, even in the statements Exs.R6 and R7, the claimants had sought only Rs.1,200/- per cent and Rs.2,000/- per cent based on the agreement entered into between them and one Kandasamy Mudaliar. However, in the covering letter unsigned, it is stated that the claimants sought for Rs.7,000/- per cent, as mentioned by the then Land Acquisition Officer, without any basis. 7.15. Similarly, the statement of K.Subramanian is dated 17.2.1986, whereas the award is dated 23.9.1986. In the said statement, he has stated that the agreement was entered into for Rs.1,200/- per cent whereas in the covering letter, it has been stated as Rs.7,000/- per cent. However, there cannot be an application for enhancement dated 17.2.1986, when the award itself was passed much later, viz. 23.9.1986. 7.16. That apart, in the case of Thilagam, the first letter is dated 22.8.1986 and the second letter is dated 12.11.1986. But, there is no other application for enhancement of the compensation. In both the statements, what was demanded is a compensation of Rs.2,000/- per cent. If that be so, we are unable to see on what basis the land acquisition officer, in the alleged proceedings dated 21.1.1993, made a reference stating that a claim was made for a sum of Rs.7,000/- per cent. Our careful perusal discloses that the said proceedings does not even contain any signature or seal. This vital fact had not been taken into consideration by the Court below, while dismissing I.As., wherein it is specifically contended by the appellant that the very application for enhancement was manipulated. If that be so, assuming Ex.R7, the covering letter is only a xerox copy of the said proceedings and is treated as an application for reference, in our considered opinion, the same is also barred by limitation, as rightly pointed out by the learned Special Government Pleader, in view of Section 28A of the Act. 7.17. Section 28A of the Act reads as follows: “Redetermination of the amount of compensation on the basis of the award of the court.— (1) Where in an award under this Part, the court allows to the applicant any amount of compensation in excess of the amount awarded by the Collector under Section 11, the persons interested in all the other land covered by the same notification under Section 4 sub-section (1) and who are also aggrieved by the award of the Collector may, notwithstanding that they had not made an application to the Collector under Section 18, by written application to the Collector within three months from the date of the award of the court require that the amount of compensation payable to them may be redetermined on the basis of the amount of compensation awarded by the court: Provided that in computing the period of three months within which an application to the Collector shall be made under this sub-section, the day on which the award was pronounced and the time requisite for obtaining a copy of the award shall be excluded.” https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 7.18. Plain language of the aforesaid section would