DY GENERAL MANAGER Vs. PATEL BHIKHABHAI BHUPATIDAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SINCE these appeals arise from the common judgment and award made by the 4th Joint Civil Judge [S.D.] Mehsana dated 22/4/2004 in Land Acquisition Reference No. 3642 of 2003 and its allied matters, they are heard together and now they are being disposed of by this common judgment.

(2.) THE appellant is the Deputy General Manager, Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd., Mehsana [hereinafter referred to as 'the ONGC']. He has challenged the award directing the ONGC to pay rent @ Rs.4.30 paise per sq.mtr., over and above the amount awarded by the Special Land Acquisition Officer. These are the cases of temporary acquisition under section 35 of the Land Acquisition Act [hereinafter referred to as 'the Act']. The lands have been acquired for the purpose of drilling wells. After completing necessary formalities under section 35(1), the land was occupied on 6/4/1979. The Special Land Acquisition Officer determined the compensation at the rate indicated in his award dated 7/6/1979. Since the original claimants disputed the rate, they submitted applications to refer the dispute to the Court for its decision on 10/7/2001. Accordingly, the Collector referred the dispute as to sufficiency of the compensation to the Court for its decision under section 35(3) of the Act. The references were resisted by the appellant by filing written statement. Apart from contending that the rate determined by the Special Land Acquisition Officer was proper, the appellant also raised dispute with regard to limitation in its written statement. The Civil Court, on the basis of the pleadings, framed the following issues : -

(3.) I have heard Mr. RR Marshall, learned advocate for the appellant, Mr. AV Prajapati, learned advocate for the original claimants and Mr. Hemang H Parikh, Ld. AGP for respondent no. 2 State. It is submitted by Mr. Marshall that the Court had no authority to determine compensation for a period beyond three years from the date of occupation. According to him, in the instant case, the Court has even covered period subsequent to three years for granting additional compensation. He has further submitted that the reference could not have been entertained by the Court since it was time barred. In his submission, the Collector had no authority to make reference under section 35(3) of the Act after expiry of three years from the date of occupation of the land by the appellant.