GOPALAKRISHNAN Vs. SPECIAL TAHSILDAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is the claimant in LAR No. 19/94. That had arisen from out of a reference application in respect of the property made mention of in the said reference case. According to the petitioner he is also a coowner in respect of an extent of 3.3498 hectares of land in survey No. 724/1. That is not the subject matter of the reference application forming the basis of LAR No. 19/94. He filed I.A. 200/98 to include the said extent also in the reference application. That is rejected by the impugned order.

(2.) The basis for a reference case before a civil court as enjoined in S.18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 is a reference application and the consideration of enhanced compensation will be confined to the property mentioned in the reference application. A time limit is also prescribed to prefer a reference application from the date of notice of award. Beyond the said time limit nobody can seen reference. Admittedly the petitioner had not made any reference application in respect of the said extent. By attempting to include another extent of land in a reference case, the petitioner in effect is seeking a reference beyond the time limit specified in the Land Acquisition Act in respect of that extent of land and is also seeking amendment of the reference application after the reference is made. The reference court does not have any power to amend the reference application or to adjudicate enhanced compensation in respect of land not covered by a reference application. So the application was rightly dismissed by the Civil court.