The Special Land Acquisition Officer, UKP vs Malakajayya Mallayya

Hakeem, J.—This appeal by the Special Land Acquisition Officer is directed against the award of enhanced compensation in respect of about 49 acres of land in Sy.Nos. 126 and 119 of Kandagal village of Bilgi Taluk in Bijapur District, acquired for submersion of Almatti Reservoir, under preliminary notification, published on 9.10.1980.

By his award dated 19.2.1981, the Special Land Acquisition Officer had fixed the compensation at the rate of Rs.3,200/- per acre. Notice of the award u/s 12(2) of the Land Acquisition Act (for short ''the Act'') was served upon the claimants on 23.2.1981. An application u/s 18(1) for reference was filed by the claimants on 18.5.1981. Thereafter, reference was made by the Land Acquisition Officer to the Civil Court only on 3.4.1986, which is far beyond the period of limitation u/s 18(2) of the Act. The only contention raised herein by the learned Government Pleader is that the reference was invalid since as it was made after the expiry of more than three years. Admittedly, none of the claimants made any application u/s 18(3)(b) of the Act before the Civil Court seeking a direction to call for reference.

In Special Land Acquisition Officer Vs. Gurappa Channabasappa Paramaj, this Court has held that a reference made by the Land Acquisition Officer u/s 18 of the Land Acquisition Act (as amended by Karnataka Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act, 1961) after the right of the claimant to make an application before the Civil Judge praying for a direction to call for reference u/s 18 of the Act had become time barred, is invalid. It is further held that the Court has not only the power but also the duty to consider as to whether reference is time barred and, therefore, invalid. From Section 3(1) (of the Limitation Act) also, it is clear that it is the duty of the Court to decide whether the proceeding instituted before it was barred by time, even if the plea of limitation is not taken by the opposite party.

In that view of the law, we have no hesitation in holding that the Land Acquisition Officer had lost jurisdiction to refer the award to the Reference Court u/s 18(2) of the Act, and further the Reference Court itself had no jurisdiction to consider such an invalid reference. In that view of the matter, it is unnecessary for us to go into the merits of the case. The appeal is entitled to succeed on this ground alone.

Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment and award are set aside. No costs.