Case Note & Summary
The revision petitioners, Arjun Shankar Waghmare and Babruwan Shankar Waghmare, were the owners of land Gut No. 316 admeasuring 1 Hector 31 R situated at Village Bhabulgaon, Tq. Kallam, Dist. Osmanabad. The land was acquired by the State of Maharashtra for the purpose of a percolation tank. After the acquisition proceedings, an award was passed by the Land Acquisition Officer. Dissatisfied with the award, the petitioners filed Land Acquisition Reference No. 248 of 2000 before the Special Land Acquisition Officer, who after scrutiny forwarded the reference to the Civil Court for adjudication. The learned IInd Joint Civil Judge Senior Division, Osmanabad, dismissed the reference on the ground that it was barred by limitation. The petitioners challenged this dismissal by filing the present Civil Revision Application under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The core legal issue was whether the Reference Court could dismiss the reference on limitation grounds when the application for reference was made by the claimants before the Collector within the prescribed period under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The petitioners argued that the Limitation Act does not apply to references under Section 18 and that the reference was made within time before the Collector. The respondent State supported the trial court's order. The High Court analyzed the provisions of Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and noted that the period of limitation prescribed under Section 18(2) applies only to the making of an application to the Collector, not to the filing of the reference in the civil court. The court held that once the application is made to the Collector within the prescribed period, the subsequent forwarding and adjudication by the civil court cannot be dismissed on the ground of delay. The court relied on the principle that the Limitation Act, 1963 does not apply to proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act unless expressly made applicable. The court allowed the revision application, set aside the order of the trial court, and directed the Reference Court to decide the reference on its own merits in accordance with law.
Headnote
A) Land Acquisition - Limitation for Reference - Section 18 of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - The Reference Court cannot dismiss a reference on the ground of delay if the claimant has made the application for reference to the Collector within the time prescribed under Section 18(2) of the Act. The period of limitation for making a reference to the civil court is not prescribed under the Act, and the Limitation Act, 1963 does not apply to such references. The court held that once the reference is made to the Collector within time, the subsequent delay in forwarding or adjudicating the reference by the civil court cannot be a ground for dismissal. (Paras 6-8)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Reference Court can dismiss a Land Acquisition Reference on the ground of limitation when the reference was made by the claimant before the Collector within the prescribed period under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894?
Final Decision
The Civil Revision Application is allowed. The impugned order dated 30th September 2009 passed by the IInd Joint Civil Judge Senior Division, Osmanabad in Land Acquisition Reference No. 248 of 2000 is set aside. The matter is remitted back to the Reference Court to decide the reference on its own merits in accordance with law. Rule made absolute accordingly with no order as to costs.
Law Points
- Limitation Act
- 1963 does not apply to references under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act
- 1894
- Reference Court cannot dismiss reference on ground of delay if reference was made within time before the Collector
- Section 18 of Land Acquisition Act
- Section 5 of Limitation Act
- 1963
