1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA FIRST APPEAL NO. 234 OF 2005 Communidade of Verna, having its office near the Church, Verna, Salcete, Goa through its attorney Mr. Savio Correia. ........ Appellant. V/s. 1. Special Land Acquisition Officer, Goa IDC, Midas Touch Bldg., 2nd Floor, Opp. El Dorado Plaza, Panaji, Goa. 2. The Managing Director, Goa IDC, Panaji, Goa. ........ Respondents. Mr. S. D. Lotlikar, Senior Advocate with Mr. H. Kankonkar, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. M. S. Sonak and J. Supekar, Advocate for respondent No.2. CORAM :- A.S. OKA & F.M. REIS, JJ. Date :- June 11, 2010. ORAL J U D G M E N T : (Per A.S. OKA, J.) The original claimant in a reference under Section 18 of 2 the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as “the said Act”) has taken an exception to the Judgment and Award dated 15th April, 2005 passed by the reference Court. The reference under Section 18 of the said Act has been dismissed on the ground of bar of limitation. 2. With a view to appreciate the controversy involved in the appeal, a brief reference to the facts of the case will be necessary. The Notification under Section 4(1) of the said Act was issued on 13th November, 2000 and was published in the official gazette on 23rd November, 2000. The Award under Section 11 of the said Act was made on 29th September, 2003. The application under Section 18 of the said Act was filed on 26th March, 2004. It must be noted here that a notice under Section 12(2) of the said Act was served to the applicant on 10th February, 2004. In the reference application, it was admitted that the notice under Section 12(2) of the said Act was served on 10th February, 2004. It is asserted that an application for issuance of certified copy of the Award was made on 17th February, 2004. It was delivered on 25th February, 2004. An objection was raised before the reference Court that the reference was barred by limitation on the 3 ground that the same was not filed within six weeks from the date of service of notice under Section 12(2) of the said Act. The reference Court has upheld the said contention and has dismissed the reference by holding that it is barred by limitation. 3. The submission of the learned Counsel appearing for the appellant is that the cause of action for filing an application under Section 18 of the said Act arises not from the date of service of notice under Section 12(2), but from the date on which the contents of the award under under Section 11 are effectively made known to the claimant. His submission is that the contents of the award were made known only on 25th February, 2004, when a certified copy of the Award was made available to the appellant. He submitted that what was served on 10th February, 2004 is only an intimation that the award has been made. There was no occasion for the appellant to know the basis of the award, such as rate awarded, the reasons for the rate awarded, etc. It was submitted that once the reference was made by the Collector to the reference Court, the said Court was under an obligation to hear the reference on merits. It was submitted that the reference Court had no jurisdiction to decide the issue of limitation. The learned 4 Counsel appearing for the appellant relied upon a decision of the Apex Court in the case of Harish Chandra vs. Dy. Land Acquisition Officer (AIR 1961 SC 1500), as well as State of Punjab vs. Qaisar Jehan Begum and anr. (AIR 1963 SC 1604). Reliance was also sought to be placed on a decision of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Mangilal Jawanmal vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer (AIR 1978 Bombay 325) in support of the submission that the period of limitation will begin to run from the date on which a certified copy of the award is made available to the appellant-claimant. The learned Counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that the view taken by the reference Court was erroneous. The learned Counsel appearing for the second respondent supported the impugned Judgment and Award. 4. Thus, only the issue which arises for our consideration is whether the reference application was barred by limitation. As far as power of the reference Court to go into the question of limitation is concerned, the law is very well settled way back in the year 1979. In the decision in the case of Md. Hasnuddin vs. State of Maharashtra (AIR 1979 SC 404), the Apex Court upheld the power of the 5 reference Court to examine the question whether the reference under Section 18 of the said Act is filed within limitation. The perusal of Judgment and Award of the reference Court shows that reliance has been placed on the later decision of the Apex Court in the case of State of Punjab vs. Satinder Bir Singh ((1995)3 SCC 330). The Apex Court by the said decision held that statutory operation of limitation mentioned by Section 18(2) does not depend on the ministerial act of communication of notice in a particular form when the Act or Rules have not prescribed any form. The Apex Court specifically held that the limitation begins to operate from the moment notice under Section 12(2) is received. The learned reference Court followed the said decision and held that the reference was barred by limitation. 5. It is not in dispute that in the present case, unless the period required for obtaining certified copy of the award can be excluded, the reference application will not be within limitation. A Division Bench of this Court in the case of Sadashiorao Balaji Satone & Ors. vs. State of Maharashtra and ors. (2004(1) ALL MR 950) had occasion to consider the same issue. After considering the decision of this Court in the case of State of Punjab (supra) and the 6 decision of this Court in Mangilal Jawanmal (supra), it was held that the limitation begins to operate from the moment the notice under Section 12(2) is received. This Court held that the earlier decision of the Division Bench of this Court in Mangilal Jawanmal (supra) was no longer a good law in view of the decision of the Apex Court in the case of State of Punjab vs. Satinder Bir Singh (supra). A reference was made by the Division Bench to another decision of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Laxmibai Narayan Patil vs. State of Maharashtra, (1997(2) ALL MR 260). 6. Thus, as the position of law stands, the period required for obtaining a certified copy of the award under Section 11 of the said Act cannot be excluded while computing the period of limitation for an application for reference under Section 18 of the said Act. Once the said period is not excluded, in the present case, the application under Section 18 is clearly barred by limitation. 7. We find no scope to interfere with the view taken by the reference Court which is consistent with the settled legal position. Hence, there is no merit in the appeal. The appeal is, accordingly, 7 dismissed with no order as to costs. A.S. OKA, J. F.M. REIS, J. ssm.