1 FA.824.91 ndm IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION FIRST APPEAL NO. 824 OF 1991 Shri Suryakant Dhundiraj Deshpande. ... Appellant Versus The Land Acquisition Officer and anr. ... Respondents ----- Mrs. A.A.Agarwal for the Appellant. Mr. A.R.Patil, AGP for Respondent No.1. ----- CORAM : A.S.OKA, J. DATE : 16 th June, 2011. ORAL JUDGMENT: 1 Heard the learned counsel appearing for the Appellant and the learned AGP appearing for the Respondent No.1. By the impugned Judgment and Award, the learned Reference Court has dismissed the reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as “the said Act”) made at the instance of the Appellant/ original claimant. 2 FA.824.91 2 At the outset, the learned AGP appearing for the Respondent No.1 pointed out that the Respondent No.1 – State Government desires to support the impugned judgment and award by contending that the finding on the issue of limitation ought to have been recorded against the Appellant as the application under Section 18 of the said Act was barred by limitation. 3 Therefore, in this appeal preferred by the original claimant in a reference under Section 18 of the said Act, before going into merits, the first question which will have to be considered is the question of limitation. The Reference Court gets jurisdiction to make adjudication under Section 18 of the said Act only if the Reference is competent. After holding that the reference is in within limitation, on merits, the Reference Court has dismissed the same. The relevant dates are undisputed. The award under Section 11 of the said Act was made on 5 th February, 1986. The notice under Section 12(2) of the said Act was served to the Appellant-claimant on 6 th February, 1985. The Appellant applied for grant of a certified copy of the award on 21 st February, 1985. He obtained the 3 FA.824.91 certified copy of the Award on 22 nd February, 1985. The application for reference under Section 18 was filed on 28 th March, 1985. Thus, the reference was filed after 50 days from the date of receipt of notice under Section 12(2) of the said Act. The submission of the learned AGP appearing for Respondent No.1 is that the time required for obtaining certified copy of the award cannot be excluded while computing the period of limitation. He submitted that there is no provision for condonation of delay. Hence, the reference was barred by limitation. The learned counsel appearing for the Appellant submitted that the reference under Section 18 of the said Act could have been made only after contents of the award were effectively made known to the Appellant and the same were made known to the Appellant on 22 nd February, 1985. Her submission is that the period between the date of service of notice under Section 12(2) of the said Act, till 22 nd February, 1985, is required to be excluded while computing the period of limitation. 4 The law on this aspect is very clear. In the case of Poshetty and others Vs. State of A.P. [(1996) 11 Supreme Court Cases 213), 4 FA.824.91 the Apex Court held that the period required for obtaining certified copy of the award under Section 11 of the said Act cannot be excluded for computing the period of limitation. Following the said decision and a decision of the Division Bench of this Court, in the case of Shantaram Ganesh Shenoy Vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer, Ratnagiri [2006 (3) Mh.L.J. 781], this Court has taken a clear view that the time required for obtaining a certified copy of the award cannot be excluded. Hence, in the present case, the period of limitation will start running from 6 th February, 1985 which is the date of service of notice. Even excluding 6 th February, 1985, the period of six weeks expired on 20 th March, 1985. As the period required for obtaining certified copy cannot be excluded, admittedly, reference application was filed after expiry period of six weeks from the date of notice under Section 12(2) of the said Act which was admittedly served to the Appellant. Therefore, the application for reference under Section 18 of the said Act was itself time barred and the reference under Section 18 of the said Act was not competent. In the circumstances, the finding of the Reference Court on the issue of bar of limitation is erroneous and the said finding can be corrected by exercising 5 FA.824.91 the powers under Rule 22 of Order XLI of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. As the reference was not competent being barred by limitation, the same was liable to be dismissed. Therefore, no fault can be found with the final order passed by the Reference Court of dismissal of the Reference. 5 Hence, there is no merit in the appeal and the same is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs. [ A.S.OKA, J ]