HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. PRAKASH RAO & HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P. DURGA PRASAD L.A.A.S Nos.237, 246, 259, 260, 265, 291, 300, 304, 305, 309, 311, 312, 313, 354, 357, 358, 359, 361, 362, 364, 365, 366, 367, 369, 371, 398, 399, 400, 404, 405, 406, 408, 411, 413, 414, 416, 417, 418, 419, 420, 421, 422, 440, 460, 461, 462, 463, 476, 478 and 615 of 2010 Date: 11.03.2011 L.A.A.S No.237 of 2010 Between: The Singareni Collieries Company Limited, rep. by its General Manager ….Appellant. And: Ellaboina Pasiah and another …..Respondents. HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. PRAKASH RAO & HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P. DURGA PRASAD L.A.A.S Nos.237, 246, 259, 260, 265, 291, 300, 304, 305, 309, 311, 312, 313, 354, 357, 358, 359, 361, 362, 364, 365, 366, 367, 369, 371, 398, 399, 400, 404, 405, 406, 408, 411, 413, 414, 416, 417, 418, 419, 420, 421, 422, 440, 460, 461, 462, 463, 476, 478 and 615 of 2010 COMMON JUDGMENT: (per Hon’ble Sri Justice P. Durga Prasad) These appeals arise under Section 54 of Land Actions Act, 1984. The L.A.A.S.Nos.237, 291, 311, 354, 358, 365, 367, 399, 404, 411, 414, 416, 418, 460, 463, 615 of 2010 are filed against the common order passed in L.A.O.P.Nos.1 of 2005 to 26 of 2005 by the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Kothagudem on 17.11.2009. The L.A.A.S.Nos.246, 259, 260,265, 300, 304, 305, 309, 312, 313, 357, 359, 361, 362, 364, 366,369, 371, 398, 400, 405, 406, 408, 413, 417,419,420,421, 422, 440, 461, 462, 476, 478 of 2010 are filed against the common order passed in L.A.O.P.Nos.27 of 2005 to 72 of 2005 by the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Kothagudem on 17.11.2009. The respondent No.1 in all the appeals are the claimants in the main OPs and the appellant herein is the respondent No.2 in the above said Ops. All the said OPs arise under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act (for shot, the Act) at the instance of the claimants for enhancement of compensation fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer (for short, the LAO) in the Award dated 15.5.1989. The respondent No.1/claimants have filed the claim statement before the Reference Court pleading that the lands of the claimants situated at Usirikayalapalli village of Singareni Mandal was acquired for the purpose of depillaring operations at the instance of the applicant. The details of the O.P. number, names of the claimants and the respective extents of the land acquired from them and the compensation awarded to them is as under: O.P.Nos. Name of the Claimant Extent of the land acquired Survey No. Land value fixed in the Award in Rupees of 2005 Yellabonia Poshaiah (wet land) 0.19 gts. 516/2 10,000/- of 2005 Banoth Lalu 0.20 0.25 Wet 0.02 1.07 516/4 517/5 518/3 10,000 of 2005 Udugula Narayana 0.08 gts.,(Wet) 517/2 10,000 of 2005 Reddiboina Lingaiah W 0.10 W 0.03 KHT 0.10 KHT 0.17 0.15 KHT 0.14 W 0.13 KHT 2.02 516/5,520/2 WET 10,000/- KHT 5,000/- of 2005 Reddiboina Thirupathaiah W 0.01 W 0.10 KHT 0.11 KHT 0.12 0.11W 0.05KH 0.14W 0.14W 516/6,521/1 519/3,521/1 519/5,522/1 520/3 W10,000/- KHT 5,000/- Total: 1.38 gts., of 2005 Udugual Ialaiah 0.06 Wet 517/3 10,000/- of 2005 Udugula Kistaiah 0.04 0.01 Wet 0.05 517/4 518/4 10,000/- of 2005 Reddiboina Venkateswarlu 0.14 KHT 0.17 KHt 0.26 Wet 519/1 520/1 521/3 5,000/- 10,000/- of 2005 Reddiboina Jaggaiah 1.11 Wet 522/3 10,000/- 0 of 2005 Reddiboina Veeriah W 0.11 W 0.10 W 0.33 0.21 KHT 1.35 519/6 519/7 520/4 520/1 Wet 10,000/- 5,000/- KHT of 2005 Reddiboina Venkateswarlu Wet 0.09 KHT 0.06 KHT 0.07 Wet 1.12 1.34 519/8 520/5 523/2 Wet 10,000/- KHT 5,000/- 2 of 2005 Pothuraju Pichamma 0.38 KHT 534/2 5,000/- 3 of 2005 Pothuraju Pichamma W 1.20 KHT 0.08 W 1.00 KHT 0.07 2.25 533/1 533/3 534/2 10,000/- 5,000/- 4 of 2005 Ellaboina Chinna Nagiah 0.06 KHT 534/4 5,000/- 5 of 2005 Ellaboina Papaiah 0.10 KHT 534/5 5,000/- 6 of 2005 Banda Pothaiah 1.36 Dry 548/67 72(p) 4,000/- 7 of 2005 Banda Surriah 1.00 Dry 548/72(p) 4,000/- 8 of 2005 Banda Kanakaiah 1.0 Dry 548/72(p) 4,000/- 9 of 2005 Banda Atchamma (died) rep. by LR Pothaiah 0.01 0.10 Dry 3.22 3.33 548/68 548/69 548/73 4,000/- 0 of 2005 Bonda Kotaiah, S/o. late Swamy 0.26 Dry 0.03 0.34 548/74(p) 548/64 4,000/- of 2005 (Late brother Pitchaiah) Band Kotaiah 1.00 Dry 548/74(p) 4,000/- 2 of 2005 Banda Kotaiah 1.00 Dry 548/74(p) 4,000/- 3 of 2005 Dasari Ramulu 0.01 0.07 KHT 0.28 507/2 507/3 5,000/- 4 of 2005 S. Venkata Narasiah 2.00 Dry 548/98 4,000/- 5 of 2005 Tammineni Laxmi 2.00 Dry 548/87 4,000/- 6 of 2005 P.Laxminarsu 1.21 Dry 548/95 548/95 4,000/- 7 of 2005 Banda Atchamma (died) rep. by LRs B. Pathaiah 1.00 KHT 498/2.3 5,000/- 8 of 2005 Banda Pothaiah 0.31 KHT 498/4 499/2 5,000/- 9 of 2005 Banda Kotaiah 0.04 KHT Dry 548/63 5,000/- 0 of 2005 Dasari Venkamma 0.04 KHT Dry 548/63 5,000/- of 2005 Basit Khan (died) rep. by LR Reddiboina Jaggaiah 0.12 Wet 0.05 KHT 0.17 512/5(p) 512/5(p) 10,000/- 5,000/- 2 of 2005 Ashabee (died) rep. by LR Reddiboina Jaggaiah 0.16 Wet 513/3 10,000/- 3 of 2005 Ashabee (died) rep. by LR Reddiboina Veeraiah 0.13 KHT 548/48 5,000/- 4 of 2005 Reddiboina Thirupathaiah Ashabee (died) rep. by LRs 0.15 KHT 548/49 5,000/- 5 of 2005 Reddiboina Lingaiah Ashabee (died) rep. by LRs 0.01 KHT 0.04 KHT 0.17 548/50 548/51 5,000/- 6 of 2005 Udugula Kistaiah Ashobee (died) rep. by LR 0.12 Wet 514/1 10,000/- 7 of 2005 Udugula Ilaiah 0.13 Wet 0.10 KHT 0.23 514/2 515/5 10,000/- 5,000/- 8 of 2005 Udugula Bhadraiah Ashabee (died) rep. by LR 0.12 Wet 0.02 KHT 0.14 5514/3 548/58 548/59 10,000/- 5,000/- 9 of 2005 Udugula Narayana, Ashabee (died) rep. by LR 0.21 KHT 0.14 KHT 0.25 515/4 548/57 5,000/- 0 of 2005 Ellaboina Poshaiah @ Papaiah 0.06 Wet 0.20 Wet 2.02 Dry 2.28 515/3 548/54 548/75 10,000/- 5,000/- of 2005 Reddiboina Venkateswarlu Ashabee (died) rep. by LR 1.17 0.10 0.06 0.10 2.03 524/1 526/2 527/1 526/1 10,000/- 2 of 2005 Kona Ramulu 0.13 W 0.11 W 0.14 W 0.21 KHT 524/2 525/1,2 526/3(p) 548/41,43 10,000/- 5,000/- 3 of 2005 Banda Surraiah 1.00 Dry 548/72 4,000/- 4 of 2005 B. Khan (died) rep. by LR Syed Jhani Pasha 0.03 Wet 0.08 KHT 0.32 KHT 1.10 527/5 548/37 548/39 10,000/- 5,000/- 5 of 2005 Sankabuddi Venkaiah 0.20 Wet 0.05 KHT 0.25 528/4(p) 528/4(p) 548/73 10,000/- 5,000/- 6 of 2005 Reddiboina Mattaiah 1.14 WET 0.01 KHT 0.18 KHT 0.05/1.38 532/4 532/1 532/2(p) 532/2(p) 10,000/- 5,000/- 7 of 2005 Yellaboina Pedda Nagaiah 2.04 KHT 548/28 5,000/- 8 of 0050.30 Yellaboina Papaiah 0.30 KHT 548/31 5,000/- 9 of 2005 Yellaboina Nagaiah 0.24 KHT 548/32 5,000/- 0 of 2005 Beraboina Laxmi 0.350 KHT 548/33 5,000/- of 2005 Mudu Ramjee 2.06 DRY 548/70(p) 4,000/- 2 of 2005 Jangili Laxmaiah 2.00 DRY 548/70(p) 4,000/- 3 of 2005 Moodu Boddu @ Bhadru 2.38 DRY 548/71(p) 4,000/- 4 of 2005 Jangili Ramulu 2.00 DRY 548/71(p) 4,000/- 5 of 2005 Pothuraju Pitchamma 1.02 KHT 4.00 DRY 548/34 548/35 537/1 536/6 536/2 536/1 536/9 536/10 4,000/- 6 of 2005 Pothuraju Pitchamma 1.33 0.05 0.33 0.09 0.03 0.02/3.05 WET 548/53(p) 5,000/- 4,000/- 7 of 2005 Gumpidi Veeraswamy and another, rep. by LR. 1.00 DRY 548/53(p) 10,000/- 8 of 2005 Gumpidi Ramachander 1.00 DRY 548/53(p) 4,000/- 9 of 2005 Gumpidi Venkataiah 0.22 DRY 0.17/0.37 DRY 548/53(p) 514/4(p) 514(p) 4,000/- 0 of 2005 Devandla Radhabai Ashabee (died) rep. by LRs 0.02 KHT 0.03 0.13 WET 0.04 0.06/0.21 KHT 548/60 514/4(p) 514/4(p) 10,000/- 5,000/- of 2005 Tammisetti Sanjeeva Rao 0.03 KHT 0.34/0.37 wet 548/56 515/2 10,000/- 5,000/- 2 of 2005 Devandla Dhanalakshmi 0.12 wet 0.11 KHT 515/1 548/55 10,000/- 5,000/- 3 of 2005 Vasam Chinnaiah @ Esala Chinnaiah 2.26 dry 548/77 4,000/- 4 of 2005 Ippa Nagamma 0.26 dry 548/93 4,000/- 5 of 2005 Ippa Radhamma 1.00 dry 548/89(p) 4,000/- 6 of 2005 Ippa Ramaiah 1.00 dry 548/89(p) 4,000/- 7 of 2005 Ippa Subbaiah 1.00 dry 548/89(p) 4,000/- 8 of 2005 Ippa Devaiah 0.25 dry 548/89(p) 4,000/- 9 of 2005 Kudum Padma 1.00 dry 548/89(p) 4,000/- 0 of 2005 Hanumakonda Nagamma 7.14. dry 548/94 4,000/- of 2005 Kethamalla Gopaiah 5.23 dry 548/97 4,000/- 2 of 2005 Reddiboina Mattaiah 1.00 KHT 548/36 5,000/- The LAO has fixed the value of the wet land at Rs.10,000/- per acre, Rs.5,000/- per acre for KHT lands and Dry lands at Rs.4,000/- per acre. The LAO passed the award under Award No.4 of 1989 dated 15.5.1989 under L.A. Case No.A2/72/86. The draft notification of land acquired was approved vide G.O.R.T.No.EFES&T of Public Relation Department dated 13.6.1988 and the Drat notification was published on gazette Part-I dated 22.8.1988. The compensation was fixed by LAO was received under protest. But the LAO has not issued 12(2) notice to the claimant or their representatives as required under the Act. According to the claimants, the acquired land is wet land and it has been cultivated as wet land for the last so many decades. The land is KHT as per records of village accounts and it was shown as dry. But in fact the KHT land is a wet land and there is no difference between the other wet land in the award. The KHT and wet lands are one and the same in nature of the land. Both are equivalent in value and used to yield similarly. The LAO has not looked into the potential value of the acquired land, and arbitrately fixed the market value of the land at low rate. The yield of the KHT and wet land is at 35 bags per acre. The claimants used to get two cart loads of fooder, paddy hay which will be useful for live stock of the claimants. The claimants used to get HEMP as second crop after harvesting the paddy. From the wet cultivation of the acquired land the claimants used to get minimum income of Rs.5,000/- to Rs.6,000/- per acre excluding expenses. The claimants used to cultivate the land by himself as such he may not incur heavy expenditure on cultivation of the land. There are alienations in Usirikayalapalli village. One Banoth Krishna alienated the land to Bhukya Haria @ Rs.11,000/- per acre under a registered document No.4 of 1986 dated 17.1.1986 and it was a dry land. In the same survey number, Banoth Krishna alienated land to Islavath Lingya under Registered document No.22/86 @ Rs.10,900/- per acre and it was dry land. In S.No.548/124 Karansingh has alienated dry land extent Acs.1.00 to L. Mansingh @ Rs.15,000/- per acre under a registered document No.2654/88. In another instance one Reddiboina Mattaiah who is also one of the claimant in this award has alienated Acs.1.00 land to Banoth Lalu @ Rs.25,000/- per acre under a registered document No.2303/1988 dated 24.12.1986. The alienation of the lands was between non tribal and tribals. The purchasing power of tribal is less when compared to non-tribal. If the non-tribal claimant has to acquire similar lands in any non tribal area, he has to spend @ Rs.50,000/- to Rs.60,000/- per acre. Now on account of acquisition of land the claimant is deprived of his very source of income. The LAO ought to have fixed for the wet land minimum Rs.30,000/- per acre. The adjoining to Usirikayalapalli village for dolomite exploration the Vizag Steel Plant has acquired lands in the year 1981-82. For the wet cultivated lands the value was fixed at Rs.23,000/- per acre. As the acquisition was in the year 1981, where as the acquisition of claimant’s land is in the year 1989, taking into consideration 10% as increase per year, the LAO ought to have fixed the market value at Rs.30,000/- per acre for wet land and at Rs.20,000/- per dry land. The 4(1) Draft notification was approved on 13.6.1988 but the possession of the land was taken on 26.5.1986. The award in this case was made on15.5.1989. The claimant is entitled to 12% additional market value on the market value from the date of draft notification i.e., 13.6.1988 to the date of award i.e., 15.5.1989 under Section 23(1) (a) of the Act. Therefore, they sought for fixation of the market value for wet land at Rs.40,000/- per acre, Rs.20,000/- per acre for dry land and sought for consequential benefits. The respondent No.1 who is the LAO has filed the reply statement admitting about the acquisition of the land of the claimants for the purpose of de-pillering operations of Singareni Collieries Company Limited under the Award No.4 of 1989 dated 15.5.1989. The LAO has fixed the market value of the land basing on his enquiry in the locality at Rs.10,000/- per acre for the wet land, Rs.4,000/- for dry land per acre and Rs.1,000/- extra amount relating to the lands for which the bunds are prepared for the purpose of cultivation of paddy. The dry land paddy cultivated lands value fixed at Rs.5,000/-. The LAO has passed award by following the procedure prescribed under the Act. According to him if the claimants raised ground nut crop they will get 25 bags of ground nuts per acre is false. The average income from the dry land is not less than Rs.4,000/- per annum after deducting the expenses are false. The LAO has fixed the compensation as per the prevailing market value on the date of acquisition by making local enquiry. So, the claim of the claimant for fixing the market value of Rs.30,000/- per wet land and Rs.20,000/- for dry land is not at all correct. The Referring Officer has not committed any irregularity in calculating the interest. The LAO granted benefits to the claimants as per the Act whatever available under the provisions of the Act. As such the claims of the claimants are liable to be dismissed. The respondent No.2 who is the appellant herein has filed the reply statement pleading that the claimant has not filed the petition under Section 18 of the Act before the LAO within the stipulated time and as such the very reference made by the Referring Officer dated 5.1.2005 is bad in law and liable to be dismissed on this count itself. According to them, the claimants have not obtained any acknowledgements for the petitions filed by them under Section18 of the Act before the Special Tahsildar of Manuguru at the time of filing of applications through their counsel. The petitions filed under Section18 of the Act referred to the court by the Referring Officer does not bear the signature/initials of the Special Tahsildar, disbanded LA Unit of Manuguru who was said to have been received the petitions. There is no record to show that the petitions of the claimants said to have been filed before the Special Tahsildar was entered in a Register that has to be maintained as per the instructions of the then Commissioner of Land Revenue. The notices under Section 12.2(a) of the Act said to have been served on the claimants do not bear any date and in some cases, such notices were not served by the Special Tahsildar, LA Unit. In the reference letter, LAO did not mention the date on which the petition under Section 18 of the Act was submitted by the claimant to their office which is the crucial date for reckoning the period of limitation and to come to a conclusion as to whether the petition was filed within limitation or not. In the matters that were referred to Civil Court under Section 30 of the Act due to title dispute, though the said OPs were decided in the year 1995, the claimants claimed that they have filed the Section18 petitions on 13.7.1989 itself which is very much prior to the date of decision of the Reference Court under Section 30 of the Act. They further pleaded that the LAO has fixed the market value of the land @ Rs.10,000/- per acre for wet land basing on sale deed dated 21.2.1986 in which land to an extent of Acs.0.20 gts. was registered @ Rs.10,000/- per acre. Similarly, LAO has fixed the market value of dry land @ Rs.4,000/- per acre basing on the sale deed No.983/86 in which land to an extent of Acs.1.20 gunts situated in S.No.548/134 in Usirikayalapalli village was registered @ Rs.4,000/- per acre. For KHT land and the LAO fixed market value @ Rs.5,000/- per acre adding Rs.1,000/- to the value of dry land after inspection of the lands under acquisition and also the sale deed lands considering all the aspects that are required under LA Act and hence the market value fixed by LAO does not warrant any enhancement. Further allegation that the land acquired for Vizag Steel Plant for Dolomite Exploration in adjoining to Usirikayalapalli village in the year 1981-1982 has no comparison to the present case, since the land in this case was acquired in the year 1989 and as such taking value of land paid by the Vizag Steel plant and increasing the value @ 10% for every year is not an approved method of fixing the market value of the land and hence cannot be considered. Hence, prayed for dismissal of the said petitions as barred by limitation and devoid of merits. The Referring Court basing on the memos filed by the claimants in L.A.O.P Nos.2 of 2005 to 26 of 2005 clubbed the said OPs with L.A.O.P No.1 of 2005 and joint enquiry was conducted in L.A.O.P.1 of 2005. Similarly basing on the Memos filed in L.A.O.P.Nos.28 of 2005 to L.A.O.P.No,72 of 2005, clubbed the said Ops with the L.A.O.P.No.27 of 2005 and common enquiry was conducted in L.A.O.P.No.27 of 2005. The respondents have not raised any objection for the same. In L.A.O.P.Nos.1 of 2005 to 26 of 2005, on behalf of the claimants, P.Ws.1 to 5 were examined and Exs.A.1 to A-15 were marked. On behalf of the 1st respondent one E. Ravikishore, Superintendent of the office of S.D.C., IPT Railways, Khammam was examined as R.W.1 and Exs.B.1 to B.27 were marked. On behalf of the 2nd respondent one N. Dasaradha Ramulu, Junior Estates Officer, was examined as R.W.2 and Exs.B.28 to B.93 were marked. During his cross-examination, the claimants got marked Exs.A.7 to A.15 which are the certified copies of Form-C applications. In L.A.O.P.Nos.27 of 2005 to 72 of 2005, on behalf of the claimants, P.Ws.1 to 6 were examined and Exs.A.1 to A.28 were marked. On behalf of the respondent No.1, one E. Ravikishore, Superintendent, in the office of S.D.C., IPT & Railways, Khammam, was examined as R.W.1 and Exs.B.1 to B.51 were marked. On behalf of 2nd respondent, one N. Dasaradha Ramulu, Junior Estates Officer, was examined as R.W.2 and Exs.B.52 to B.154 were marked. During his cross-examination, the claimants got marked Exs.A.7 to A.15, which are the certified copies of Form-C applications. Basing on the pleadings, the Referring Court has framed the following points for consideration in both batch of OPs: 1. Whether the reference in all these cases were made within the period of limitation? 2. Whether the claimants are entitled for enhancement of market value as prayed for by them together with all statutory benefits? The Referring Court by taking consideration of both oral and documentary evidence placed before it came to the conclusion in both batch of OPs that the applications filed under Section 18 of the Act were field within the period of limitation and accordingly point No.1 was held in favour of the claimants. In Point No.2, the Referring Court has enhanced the market value of the acquired lands to Rs.13,000/- per acre for dry land, Rs.15,000/- per acre for KHT land, Rs.25,000/- per acre for wet lands together with additional market value of 12% from the date of draft notification i.e., 16.11.1988 to the date of award i.e., 15.5.1989 and 30% solatium on the market value together with interest @ 9% per one year from 26.5.1986 to 25.5.1987 and @ 15% p.a., thereafter on the enhanced market value from the date of award i.e., 15.5.1989 till the date of payment of unpaid additional market value and enhanced market value. The respondents are also directed to pay costs of the claims. Aggrieved by the said common order passed in both batch of OPs, the respondent No.2 therein has filed the present appeals. Since the evidence recorded and documents marked and the issues involved in both the batch of OPs is the same the appeals arising out of the said batch of OPs are being disposed by this following common judgment. The main contention of the learned counsel for the appellants Sri N. Subba Reddy that the applications filed under Section18 of the Act by the claimants for making reference to the Referring Court were not filed within the period of limitation and no material was placed before the Referring Court to establish that the applications were filed within the period of limitation and the Referring Court has failed to consider that the applications do not bear the initials or date stamp of the office of the LAO and some applications do not bear the date of filing of the applications and the Vakalat filed along with the said claim petitions do not bear the date and the Advocate who has filed Vakalat has not signed on the petitions and as such the reference itself is bad and the same is liable to be set aside. The next contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellant is that the quantum of compensation fixed by the lower court basing on Exs.A.2 to A.4 which are the transitions taken place subsequent to taking possession of the land and as such they cannot be relied upon and the claimants have not produced any evidence with regard to the income derived from the acquired land. The next point raised by the learned counsel for the appellant is that the claimants are not entitled for the interest for the period during which they kept quiet without making any efforts for referring their applications to the Referring Court under Section 18 of the Act i.e., from 15.5.1989 to 18.5.2004/21.5.2004. The learned counsel for the appellant has further pleaded that the claimants are not entitled for interest prior to the date of issuance of draft notification even though the possession was taken prior to the date of issuance of the notification. The learned counsel for the 1st respondent/claimants Sri R. Kameswara Rao, on the other hand, has pleaded that the referring officer has rightly taken into consideration of Exs.B.2 to B.7 applications said to have been filed by the claimants were produced by the respondents themselves before the Referring Court and the burden is on the respondent to establish that the applications were not filed within the period of limitation as all the records will be available with the respondents to establish the same and having not established the same, the referring court has rightly come to the conclusion that the applications are filed within the period of limitation. The learned counsel for the respondent/claimants has further pleaded that the enhancement of the compensation was made by the referring court basing on the award passed in O.P.No.170 of 1991 for the lands acquired in the same village and which was confirmed by this Court and enhancement was not based on Exs.A.2 to A.4 produced by the claimants, as such the said enhancement does not warrant any interference by this Court. The next contention of the learned counsel for the respondents/claimants is that the delay in making the reference was on the part of the 2nd respondent herein i.e., LAO and as such the claimants cannot be deprived of interest for the delay in referring the matter by the 2nd respondent. The respondents’ counsel further pleaded that the claimants are entitled for interest for the pre-notification period from the date of taking possession of the land and under Section 34 of the Act. From the above said pleas of the respective counsels, the points that arise for considerations are: 1. Whether the application under Section 18 of the Act filed by the claimants are barred by limitation? 2.