FA/688/2003 1/8 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD FIRST APPEAL No. 688 of 2003 To FIRST APPEAL No. 697 of 2003 For Approval and Signature: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI ========================================================= 1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ? 3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ? 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 ? 5 Whether it is to be circulated to the civil judge ? ========================================================= SPL.LAQ OFFICER & 1 - Appellant(s) Versus PRUTHVISINH GOPALSINH ZALA - Defendant(s) ========================================================= Appearance : MR RR MARSHALL for Appellant(s) : 1 - 2. RULE SERVED for Defendant(s) : 1, ========================================================= CORAM : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI Date : 22/01/2008 ORAL JUDGMENT 1.0 These Appeals are directed against the judgment FA/688/2003 2/8 JUDGMENT and order dated 18.07.2002 passed by the learned Extra Assistant Judge, Mehsana in Land Acquisition Reference Case Nos. 916/1998 to 925/1998 whereby, the said References were partly allowed. 2.0 The facts in brief leading rise to the filing of the present Appeals are as under ; 2.1 The Special Land Acquisition Officer, O.N.G.C., Mehsana initiated proceedings under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 [for short, “the Act”] for the purpose of acquiring the lands situated at Village Sadhutla, Taluka Bechraji, District Mehsana, belonging to the respondents – claimants for temporary occupation. After following due procedure, the said lands were acquired vide order dated 02.05.1998 passed in L.A.Q. Case No. 31 of 1994. 2.2 However, being dissatisfied by the amount of compensation awarded by the Special Land Acquisition Officer, References were preferred u/s. 35(3) of the Act, FA/688/2003 3/8 JUDGMENT which came to be numbered as Land Acquisition Reference Case Nos. 916/1998 to 925/1998. The said Cases were taken up for hearing by the learned Extra Assistant Judge, Mehsana and after hearing learned counsel for both the sides, the learned Judge partly allowed the said References. Being aggrieved by the said order, the appellant – Corporation has approached this Court by way of these Appeals. 3.0 Mr. R. R. Marshall learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant – Corporation has contented that though certain documents were produced on record vide Exhibit – 20, the same were not considered by the Court below. Apart from that the Court below has also not appreciated the contention raised by the appellant – Corporation that since the respondents – claimants had not produced on record the copy of the decision Exhibit – 15 heavily relied upon by them, the same should not be considered by the reference Court. However, the reference Court has not dealt with the aforesaid aspect and has passed the impugned order. Hence, the impugned order FA/688/2003 4/8 JUDGMENT deserves to be quashed and set aside. 3.1 Learned Advocate has further contented that in view of the principle laid down by this Court in the case of Patel Shambhubhai Bhaichanddas v. State of Gujarat & anr. reported in 2007 (1) G.L.R. 713, the Court below ought not to have entertained the reference beyond the statutory limit of three years and hence, the impugned judgment passed by the reference Court deserves to be quashed and set aside. 4.0 Though served none appears on behalf of the respondent. Having gone through the impugned judgment, it appears that the Court below has not considered the documents produced on record by the appellant – Corporation vide Exhibit – 20. In my opinion, the premise on which the Court below has declined to consider the said documents is completely improper. 5.0 Moreover, the reference Court has also lost sight of the principle laid down by this Court in the case of Patel Shambhubhai Bhaichanddas (supra) wherein, it has been FA/688/2003 5/8 JUDGMENT held that Sections 35 & 36 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 provide for temporary occupation of land for public purpose for a maximum period of three years only and that the retention of the same beyond the said period would amount to unauthorized possession. The observations made in Para 5.4 of the said decision are relevant which reads as under; “It is obvious that the Collector gets power to refer the dispute as to sufficiency of compensation which may arise within the agreed term or maximum period of three years. Any dispute which crosses this time-limit cannot be the subject-matter of the decision of the Court. In other words, the Collector's reference has to confine itself to the controversy arising within the prescribed period u/s. 35(1) of the Act. The matter of compensation is contained in Section 35 of the Act. In such reference, therefore, the Court is required to give its decision in relation to difference as to sufficiency of compensation only for maximum period of three years and not beyond that even when the reference is made within the stipulated period. Any decision on the reference beyond period of three years cannot be termed as legal and in accordance with the provisions of the Act and hence, it is without jurisdiction.” 5.1 Similar principle has been laid down in another decision of this Court in the case of Oil & Natural Gas FA/688/2003 6/8 JUDGMENT Corporation Ltd. v. Pandya Prahladbhai Manilal & Ors. reported in 2007 (2) G.L.R. 1306. 5.2 In the present case, indisputably, the acquiring body, i.e. the O.N.G.C., has retained the possession of the land in question for the statutory period of more than three years. There does not appear to be any written or oral agreement between the parties to the effect that the acquiring body shall retain the land in question for the statutory period of more than three years in pursuance of any written or oral agreement; and if any such written or oral agreement is in existence between the parties, then such retention will be governed by the said written or oral agreement. But, in any case, the provisions of Section 35 of the Act shall not apply after the aforesaid temporary acquisition period is over. Therefore, evidently, the Court below has committed an error in entertaining the Reference in question. Keeping in mind the principle laid down by this Court in the above referred decisions, I am of the opinion that the impugned order passed by the Court below cannot be sustained. FA/688/2003 7/8 JUDGMENT 6.0 Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and since none appears on behalf of the respondent, in the fitness of things, it would be appropriate that the matter is remanded to the Court below for decision afresh in view of the principle laid down in Patel Shambhubhai Bhaichanddas' (supra) case and the documents produced on record by the appellant – Corporation vide Exhibit – 20. 7.0 In the result, the Appeals are partly allowed. The impugned order dated 18.07.2002 passed by the learned Extra Assistant Judge, Mehsana in Land Acquisition Reference Case Nos. 916/1998 to 925/1998 are quashed and set aside. The matters are remanded to the reference Court concerned and the said Court is directed to consider the same afresh keeping in mind the law laid down by this Court in the above-referred decisions and the documents produced by the appellant vide Exhibit – 20. The amount deposited by the appellant – Corporation with the reference Court shall be invested in Fixed Deposit with a nationalized Bank initially for a period of one year and the same shall be FA/688/2003 8/8 JUDGMENT renewed from time to time till the final order is passed by the reference Court. It is clarified that this Court has not entered into the merits of the matter and the reference Court, while considering the matters afresh, shall not be influenced by the fact that this Court has quashed its earlier order. The Appeals stand disposed of accordingly. No order as to costs. Office is directed to send the R & P to the Court below forthwith. [K. S. JHAVERI, J.] Pravin/*