FA/3101/2008 1/4 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD FIRST APPEAL No. 3101 of 2008 To FIRST APPEAL No. 3105 of 2008 For Approval and Signature: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI ========================================================= 1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? -Yes. 2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ? -No. 3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ? -No. 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 ? -No. 5 Whether it is to be circulated to the civil judge ? -No. ========================================================= GENERAL PROJECT MANAGER, ONGC LTD. - Appellant(s) Versus HIRENBHAI HASMUKHBHAI PATEL & 1 - Defendant(s) ========================================================= Appearance : MR AJAY R MEHTA for Appellant(s) : 1, MR BD KARIA for Defendant(s) : 1, MR SS SHAH, GP WITH MS TRUSHA PATEL, AGP for Defendant(s) : 2, ========================================================= CORAM : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI Date : 02/09/2008 ORAL JUDGMENT 1. These appeals at the instance of Oil and Natural Gas FA/3101/2008 2/4 JUDGMENT Corporation, the Acquiring Body, under section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act read with Section 96 of Civil Procedure Code are against the judgment and award dated 28/9/2007 passed by the learned Second Additional Senior Civil Judge, Kheda at Nadiad in Land Reference Case Nos.613 to 616 of 2004. 2. The State had acquired certain land on temporary basis of the original claimants under Section 35 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. After following procedure the Land Acquisition Officer vide his award dated 1/1/2003 in LAQ Case No.1/2001/K awarded rent of Rs.4/- per sq. mtr per annum. Feeling aggrieved by the said decision, the claimants filed references before the learned Second Additional Senior Civil Judge, Kheda at Nadiad claiming rental compensation at the rate of Rs.22/- per sq. mtr. per annum. After considering the matters, the learned Judge has awarded additional compensation at the rate of Rs.14/- per sq. mtr. per annum. Therefore, in all the total rental compensation comes to Rs.18/- per sq. mtr. per annum. It is against the said awards the present appeals have been filed. 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: FA/3101/2008 3/4 JUDGMENT “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 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 hereinabove,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 laches. [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. FA/3101/2008 4/4 JUDGMENT [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. [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. The ratio laid down in the aforesaid case is squarely applicable to the facts of the case. Learned advocate for the respondents are not able to point out anything to take a different view of the matter. 5. In the premises aforesaid, these appeals are allowed. The judgment and award impugned in these appeals are quashed and set aside. No order as to costs. (K.S.JHAVERI, J.) (ila)