1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA FIRST APPEAL NO. 77 OF 2001 1. Deputy Collector, North Goa Division, Panaji – Goa. 2. Director of Agriculture, Panaji – Goa. ........ Appellants. V/s. 1. Sunita M. Tar 2. Madhukar Datta Tar Both residents at Shetiawada, Duler, Mapusa. ........ Respondents. Mr. V. Rodrigues, Addl. Govt. Advocate for the appellants. None for the respondents, though served. CORAM :- D.G. KARNIK, J. Date :- 26th August, 2010. ORAL JUDGMENT : (1) This appeal is directed against the Judgment and Award dated 31st August, 2000 passed by the Addl. District Judge, Panaji 2 awarding compensation at the rate of Rs.2/- per sq. metre for the acquired land belonging to the respondents. (2) The respondents claim to be the owners of the land bearing Plot No.17, admeasuring 19,633 sq. metres, situated at Chorao in the Tiswadi Taluka of North Goa District (hereinafter referred to as “the suit land”). A Notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short “the Act”) was published for acquisition of the suit land along with other lands in the Government Gazette dated 26th March, 1984. The award in respect of the suit land was passed by the Dy. Collector and Special Land Acquisition Officer on 30th January, 1982. On 14th January, 1986, the respondents made an application purporting to be an application under Section 18, read with Section 30 of the Act for referring the matter to the District Court for determination of the compensation. The Collector referred the matter to the District Judge which was numbered as Land Acquisition Case No. 4/1987. By his Judgment and Award 31st August, 2000, the learned Addl. District Judge, Panaji allowed the reference and enhanced the compensation from Re.0.50 per sq. metre to Rs.2/- per sq. metre, as also the solatium at the rate of 30 % and interest at the 3 rate of 12 % per annum. (3) The learned Addl. Govt. Advocate firstly submitted that the reference application was not made within limitation and was liable to be dismissed. Admittedly, the award has been passed on 30th January, 1982 and the application for reference was made on 14th January, 1986. In the reference application, the respondents had contended that they were not present before the Collector when the award was made, nor was any notice of the award served on them. They have stated that in fact they were not aware of the proceedings of land acquisition as notices under Sections 4 and 6 of the Act were also not served on them, but were served on one Smt. Maria Blandina Coelho Velho, assuming her to be the owner of the suit land. The respondents, in the application for reference, have stated that they came to know about the acquisition proceedings for the first time on 22nd July, 1985 and thereafter they made an application for reference on 14th January, 1986. These facts were disputed by the State before the reference Court . The learned Counsel for the appellant invited my attention to paragraph 5 of the written statement filed before the District Court, wherein it was specifically contended that the reference 4 was not maintainable in law and was to be rejected, inter alia, on the following ground : “That the application made by the applicant for reference is barred by limitation as prescribed under Section 18 of the said Act.” It appears that the respondents were present when the award was made. They could, therefore, apply for a reference within a period of six months from the date of the award. But the reference is made even after the expiry of period of six months. However, in Parsottambhai Maganbhai Patel and ors. vs. State of Gujarat through Dy. Collector, Modasa & another, (2005) 7 SCC 431, the Honourable Supreme Court has interpreted the words `the date of the award'. No material was produced before the learned Addl. District Judge as to “the date of knowledge of the declaration of the award” by the respondents. No issue was framed by the reference Court as to the date of the knowledge of the award by the respondents. No finding was recorded by the reference Court as to whether the reference was within limitation or not. (4) In my view since the question of limitation was 5 specifically raised in the written statement on behalf of the State, the reference Court ought to have framed an issue, whether the reference application was filed within the period of limitation and ought to have recorded a finding on that issue. Since that has not been done, the impugned Judgment and Award needs to be quashed and set aside and the matter is required to be remanded to the reference Court for the purpose of determining the question of limitation. In view of this, other points urged by the learned Additional Govt. Advocate are not considered. (5) For all these reasons, the appeal is allowed. The impugned Judgment and Award is set aside and the matter is remanded to the reference Court with a direction to frame an issue as to limitation and decide the reference afresh in accordance with law. In the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs. D.G. KARNIK, J. ssm.