rpa IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION FIRST APPEAL NO. 2135 OF 2008 FIRST APPEAL NO. 2135 OF 2008 FIRST APPEAL NO. 2135 OF 2008 Konkan Railway Corporation Ltd. .. Appellant Vs. Shri Devidas Pandurang Sanap & Ors. .. Respondents Ms.Asha Bhambwani for the Appellant. Mr.Prakash Mahadik for Respondent No.1. CORAM : A.P.DESHPANDE, J. CORAM : A.P.DESHPANDE, J. CORAM : A.P.DESHPANDE, J. DATED : 17TH JANUARY, 2009 DATED : 17TH JANUARY, 2009 DATED : 17TH JANUARY, 2009 P.C. P.C. P.C. . Admit. 2. By consent of the parties taken up for final hearing. 3. Heard both the learned Advocates. This is an Appeal filed by Konkan Railway Corporation Limited, which is a Statutory Authority / Corporation, for whose benefit the land held by the Respondents has been acquired. Two fold submissions has been made by the learned counsel for the Appellant. (1) That the Appellant had a right of hearing before the Reference Court . It is submitted that the Appellant was not afforded an opportunity of hearing as the Appellant ( 2 ) was not impleded as a party Respondent and thus the Award stands vitiated. Reliance is placed on the Judgment of the Supreme Court in the case reported in AIR 1995, Supreme Court 1004 AIR 1995, Supreme Court 1004 AIR 1995, Supreme Court 1004 and (2) That the Reference Application moved by the Respondent owner of the land was barred by Law of Limitation provided by section 18 of the Act. The learned counsel for the Respondent admits the fact that the Appellant has not afforded an opportunity of hearing and that the Reference Court enhanced the compensation. However, in regard to the next submission in relation to limitation, it is contended that the objection to the bar of limitation was not raised in the written statement filed before the Reference Court by the State Government. It is thus, submitted that question of limitation being a mixed question of fact and law, the matter needs to be remanded back so that the Respondent is not taken by surprise in regard to the plea of bar of limitation. 4. It is clear from the Supreme Court Judgment referred to hereinabove that the Statuary Authority / Corporation is ‘a person interested’ when it comes to determination of just and proper compensation. In this view of the matter, the said contention raised by the learned counsel for the Appellant has to be ( 3 ) upheld. 5. In regard to the objection to the bar of limitation, my attention is invited to the claim petition filed by the Respondent wherein it is stated that the Award was passed on 21st December, 1992 and a notice under section 12(2) was served on the Respondents on 2nd February, 1993. The learned counsel for the Respondent rightly contented that a plea of bar of limitation was in the first place not raised before the Court below and hence, the same ought not be adjudicated in this Appeal. He tried to submit that the limitation would stand extended by the time spent for obtaining the certified copy by Respondent. Prima facie this submission is not well founded as the Land Acquisition Act is a complete code in itself and the provisions of Limitation Act would not have any application. As the point of bar of limitation was never raised before the Reference Court, the Respondent herein did not have any opportunity to contest the same. In the interest of justice, I do not feel it proper to adjucate the said question in the present Appeal. 6. Lastly, the learned counsel for the Respondent has placed reliance on a Judgment delivered by the ( 4 ) Division Bench of this Court in First Appeal No.1003 First Appeal No.1003 First Appeal No.1003 of 2003 dated 1st March, 2005, of 2003 dated 1st March, 2005, of 2003 dated 1st March, 2005, with a view to canvass that the practice followed by this Court is to call upon the Appellant to deposit the amount though the case is being remanded back for a rehearing. The Judgment of the Division Bench does not lay down any law and hence, the observation and/or recourse taken in the said matter does not bind this Court in the facts of the present case. There is a serious doubt as to whether the Reference is filed within limitation or otherwise. Hence, I do not propose to direct the Appellant to deposit any amount. In the result, the First Appeal is allowed. 7. The impugned Award passed by the Reference Court dated 27th November, 2006 passed in L.R. No.30 of 1994 is set aside. The matter is remanded to the Reference Court for rehearing of the matter. The Court below shall decide the Reference after giving an opportunity of hearing to the present Appellant. 8. The costs of this Appeal shall be the costs in the cause. (A.P.DETHRONED, J.) (A.P.DETHRONED, J.) (A.P.DETHRONED, J.)