Gujarat High Court
Oil & Natural Gas Corporation Ltd vs Shri Jayarambhai Becharbhai Patel … on 22 April, 2026
Author: Bhargav D. Karia
Bench: Bhargav D. Karia
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/4876/2006 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/04/2026
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 4876 of 2006
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 1 of 2006
In
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 4876 of 2006
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR ORDERS) NO. 1 of 2007
In
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 4876 of 2006
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 4877 of 2006
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 1 of 2006
In
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 4877 of 2006
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR ORDERS) NO. 1 of 2007
In
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 4877 of 2006
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 4878 of 2006
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 1 of 2006
In
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 4878 of 2006
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR ORDERS) NO. 1 of 2007
In
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 4878 of 2006
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BHARGAV D. KARIA
and
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE L. S. PIRZADA
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
==========================================================
OIL & NATURAL GAS CORPORATION LTD.
Versus
SHRI JAYARAMBHAI BECHARBHAI PATEL (SINCE DECEASED) & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
M/S TRIVEDI & GUPTA(949) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
DECEASED LITIGANT THROUGH LEGAL HEIRS/ REPRESTENTATIVES
for the Defendant(s) No. 1
Page 1 of 51
Uploaded by JYOTI V. JANI(HC00213) on Fri May 08 2026 Downloaded on : Fri May 08 23:20:56 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/4876/2006 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/04/2026
undefined
MS NIRALI SARDA, AGP for the Defendant(s) No. 2
RULE SERVED for the Defendant(s) No. 1.2,1.3,1.4
UNSERVED EXPIRED (R) for the Defendant(s) No. 1.1,1.5
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BHARGAV D. KARIA
and
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE L. S. PIRZADA
Date : 22/04/2026
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BHARGAV D. KARIA)
1. Heard learned advocate Ms. Aishwarya
Reddy with learned advocate Neha
Mukherjee for M/s. Trivedi & Gupta for
the appellant, learned Assistant
Government Pleader Ms. Nirali Sarda for
respondent No.2 and learned advocate
Mr. Jigar Gadhvi for respondent No.1 in
First Appeal No. 4877 of 2006.
2. These appeals arise out of the common
Judgement and Award dated 19.10.2005
passed by the learned Reference Court
in Land Reference Case Nos. 5492/2003
Page 2 of 51
Uploaded by JYOTI V. JANI(HC00213) on Fri May 08 2026 Downloaded on : Fri May 08 23:20:56 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/4876/2006 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/04/2026
undefined
to 5494/2003 under section 35(3) of the
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short
‘the Act, 1894’).
3. The brief facts of the case are that
respondent No.1 preferred a Reference
being aggrieved by the Award dated
18.05.1981 passed by the Land
Acquisition Officer in Compensation
Case No. 10/1981 under sections 35 and
37 of the Act, 1894 whereby, the amount
of compensation, by way of rent, was
fixed at Rs. 00.42 paisa per sq.mtr.
Respondent No.1, in each appeal, filed
representation to the Special Land
Acquisition Officer on 20.12.2002 to
refer the matter before the District
Court to fix the just and adequate
amount of compensation. The Special
Page 3 of 51
Uploaded by JYOTI V. JANI(HC00213) on Fri May 08 2026 Downloaded on : Fri May 08 23:20:56 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/4876/2006 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/04/2026
undefined
Land Acquisition Officer made reference
to the District Court, Mehsana, for the
purpose of determining just and
adequate amount of compensation rent as
requested by the claimants.
3.1 The Learned Reference Court
entertained the reference by holding
that the claimants had proved that
compensation rent awarded was
inadequate and as such, after
considering the aspect of delay in
preferring the reference, the court
enhanced the amount of rent at Rs. 3
per sq. mtr. from the date of taking
possession up to 31.12.1982 and
thereafter, increasing @15% every year
with interest @ 12% per annum up to
13.12.1990 and thereafter, at the rate
Page 4 of 51
Uploaded by JYOTI V. JANI(HC00213) on Fri May 08 2026 Downloaded on : Fri May 08 23:20:56 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/4876/2006 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/04/2026
undefined
of @9% per annum till the amount is
realized and further held that the
amount of compensation fixed at Rs. 15
per sq. mtr. with effect from
01.01.2005 shall be increased at the
rate of 15% at every interval of three
years commencing from the said date.
Being aggrieved, the appellant-ONGC has
preferred these appeals.
4. The Co-ordinate Bench of this Court has
admitted these appeals on 12.12.2006
and in Civil Applications (For Stay)
following order was passed:
“Rule returnable on January 30,
2007. Ad-interim relief in terms
of Para-6(A) is granted on the
condition that the applicant
deposits, in each case, the
amount of compensation at the
rate of Rs.7/- per sq.mt. perPage 5 of 51
Uploaded by JYOTI V. JANI(HC00213) on Fri May 08 2026 Downloaded on : Fri May 08 23:20:56 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATIONC/FA/4876/2006 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/04/2026
undefined
year, minus the amount of
compensation already paid to the
claimant/s, from the date of
filing of the Reference
Application till March 31, 2006
with interest at the rate of 9%
per annum thereon for the said
period, with the Reference Court
on or before the returnable
date.”
5. It appears that the appellant-ONGC has
preferred Civil Application No.
12124/2007 to 12126/2007 [New No. (CA
1/2007 in the respective First Appeals]
for modification of the aforesaid order
dated 12.12.2006 passed in Civil
Application (For Stay) wherein it was
contended that the subject land was
permanently acquired and the Special
Land Acquisition Officer passed an
award under section 11 of the Act, 1894
on 20.01.1989 and the surplus portion
Page 6 of 51
Uploaded by JYOTI V. JANI(HC00213) on Fri May 08 2026 Downloaded on : Fri May 08 23:20:56 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/4876/2006 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/04/2026
undefined
of the subject land was surrendered to
the original claimant in the Year 1990.
6. The appellant-ONGC has also filed an
additional affidavit placing the
relevant details with regard to the
acquisition proceedings of the subject
land.
7. It is stated in the affidavit that out
of the total subject land in question
which is admeasuring 11832 sq. mtrs.,
land admeasuring 7895 sq. mtrs. was
permanently acquired on 20.01.1989 and
balance land admeasuring 3937 sq. mtrs.
was surrendered to the claimants on
12.03.1990.
Page 7 of 51
Uploaded by JYOTI V. JANI(HC00213) on Fri May 08 2026 Downloaded on : Fri May 08 23:20:56 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/4876/2006 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/04/2026
undefined
8. It is also stated that the rent payable
for the subject land was not due and
the appellant-Corporation had paid the
rent to the tune of Rs. 43,641.78 till
09.06.1990 [Rs. 22,757/- to the
claimant of First Appeal No. 4876/2006
+ Rs. 12,638.53 to the claimant of
First Appeal No. 4877/2006 +
Rs. 8246.25 to the claimant of First
Appeal No. 4878/2006].
9. It was further stated in the additional
affidavit filed on behalf of the
appellant that the land admeasuring
789.5 sq.mtrs was permanently acquired
under the Act, 1894 and Notification
under section 41 was published on
07.08.1986 followed by a Notification
under section 6(1) of the Act, 1894 on
Page 8 of 51
Uploaded by JYOTI V. JANI(HC00213) on Fri May 08 2026 Downloaded on : Fri May 08 23:20:56 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/4876/2006 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/04/2026
undefined
12.12.1987. The Special Land
Acquisition Officer passed an award
under section 11 of the Act, 1894, by
awarding the compensation Rs. 2 per sq.
mtr. to the claimant. The claimant
thereafter, preferred Land Acquisition
Reference under section 18 of the
Act,1894 for enhancement of the
compensation. The learned Reference
Court, by Judgement and Award dated
26.10.1999 in LAR Nos. 2571 to 2573 of
1993, awarded an amount of Rs. 10 per
sq. mtr. with additional compensation
under section 23(1)(a) and solatium
under section 23(2) of the Act,1894
with interest @9% per annum from the
date of taking possession till one year
and thereafter @15% till the amount is
Page 9 of 51
Uploaded by JYOTI V. JANI(HC00213) on Fri May 08 2026 Downloaded on : Fri May 08 23:20:56 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/4876/2006 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/04/2026
undefined
realized from the date of award or from
the date of taking possession whichever
is earlier in point of time.
10. The appellant, being aggrieved by the
aforesaid Award dated 26.10.1999,
preferred First Appeal Nos. 4076 to
4078 of 2001 before this Court. The
First Appeals were dismissed by the
Judgement and order dated 05.12.2001.
Being aggrieved, the appellant
preferred an appeal before the Hon’ble
Supreme Court. The Hon’ble Supreme
Court vide Judgment dated 08.08.2005
dismissed Civil Appeal No. 173 of 2004
arising out of the above First Appeals
filed by the appellant.The appellant,
thereafter, deposited the amount of
Page 10 of 51
Uploaded by JYOTI V. JANI(HC00213) on Fri May 08 2026 Downloaded on : Fri May 08 23:20:56 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/4876/2006 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/04/2026
undefined
compensation of Rs. 1,44,603/- on
12.03.2004 before the Reference Court
during the pendency of the appeal
before the Hon’ble Apex Court.
11. The appellant, therefore, has preferred
the Civil Applications No. 1/2007 in
each appeal for modification of the
order dated 12.12.2006.
12. In view of the above facts, we have
taken up the appeals for hearing.
13. Learned advocate Ms. Neha Mukerjee for
the appellant submitted that the
learned Reference Court could not have
entertained the reference on the ground
of delay as such reference was not
maintainable as the claimants had filed
the Reference after more than twenty
Page 11 of 51
Uploaded by JYOTI V. JANI(HC00213) on Fri May 08 2026 Downloaded on : Fri May 08 23:20:56 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/4876/2006 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/04/2026
undefined
years. It was submitted that in similar
facts, this Court in First Appeal Nos.
791 and 794 of 2007 by Judgement and
Order dated 13.03.2008 in case of Oil
and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd vs.
Shankarji Hemaji reported in (2008) 2
GLR 1226 has allowed the appeals filed
by the ONGC setting aside the Judgment
and Award passed by the Reference Court
under section 35(3) of the Act, 1894 in
In Land Reference Case Nos. 3780 to
3784 of 2003 filed by the claimant on
similar facts regarding the land
situated at Village:Dhanpura, Dist.-
Mehsana.
14.1 It was submitted that the
subject land of these appeals are
Page 12 of 51
Uploaded by JYOTI V. JANI(HC00213) on Fri May 08 2026 Downloaded on : Fri May 08 23:20:56 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/4876/2006 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/04/2026
undefined
situated at Survey Nos. 437/Paiki,
440/1P, 436 and 438 at Village-Santhal,
Taluka and District-Mehsana.
14.2 Learned advocate
Ms. Mukherjee submitted that by the
Judgment and Order dated 15.06.2015 in
First Appeal Nos. 4854 to 4855 of 2008
filed by the appellant, this Court has
again followed the decision in case of
Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Limited
vs Shankarji Hemaji (supra) by holding
that the application under section
35(3) of the Act, 1894, Reference Court
is not empowered to pass an order in
respect of the future rent and the
reference application submitted by the
original claimants were held to be not
Page 13 of 51
Uploaded by JYOTI V. JANI(HC00213) on Fri May 08 2026 Downloaded on : Fri May 08 23:20:56 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/4876/2006 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/04/2026
undefined
maintainable on the ground of
limitation considering Article 137 of
the Limitation Act and the applications
were held liable to be dismissed on the
ground of delay and laches.
14.3 It was therefore, submitted
that even on merits, these appeals are
squarely covered by the aforesaid
Judgement and Order and are required to
be allowed by quashing and setting
aside the impugned Judgement and Award
passed by the learned Reference Court.
14. On the other hand, learned advocate Mr.
Jigar Gadhvi for the claimant of First
Appeal No. 4877 of 2006 rlied up on and
supported the Judgement and Award
passed by the learned Reference Court.
Page 14 of 51
Uploaded by JYOTI V. JANI(HC00213) on Fri May 08 2026 Downloaded on : Fri May 08 23:20:56 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/4876/2006 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/04/2026
undefined
15. Though Served, no one appeared for the
claimants in other two appeals.
16. Having heard learned advocates for the
respective parties and considering the
facts of the case when the subject land
is already acquired permanently in the
Year 1989 and the surplus land has
already been surrendered to the
claimants in the year 1990, the
claimants could not have sought
reference under section 35 of the Act,
1894 in the Year 2001 which is almost
after twenty years from the date of the
award determining the compensation rent
passed by the Special Land Acquisition
Officer on 10.05.1981.
Page 15 of 51
Uploaded by JYOTI V. JANI(HC00213) on Fri May 08 2026 Downloaded on : Fri May 08 23:20:56 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/4876/2006 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/04/2026
undefined
17. Similar issue of delay has been
considered by this Court in case of Oil
and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd vs.
Shankarji Hemaji (Supra) wherein, it is
held as under:
“23. At the outset, it is
required to be noted that
acquisition of the land in question
was temporary acquisition for ONGC
under sec.35 of the Act. The award
came to be declared by the Special
Land Acquisition Officer as back as
on 11/8/1980 determining the
compensation/rent at the rate of
0.35 paise per sq. mtr. The
reference applications under
sec.35(3) of the Act were submitted
by the claimants on 16/7/2001 i.e.
after a period of 21 years with
regard to adequacy of the rent
determined by the Special LandPage 16 of 51
Uploaded by JYOTI V. JANI(HC00213) on Fri May 08 2026 Downloaded on : Fri May 08 23:20:56 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATIONC/FA/4876/2006 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/04/2026
undefined
Acquisition Officer on 11/8/1980.
On behalf of all the claimants,
claimant of LAR No.3780 of 2003
Thakor Shivaji Hemaji came to be
examined at Ex.11 for and on behalf
of all the claimants. Nothing is on
record to show that there was any
difference/dispute raised by the
original land owners at the time of
acquisition in the year 1980 and at
the time when the Special Land
Acquisition Officer declared the
award on 11/8/1980 determining the
compensation/rent at the rate of
0.35 paise per sq. mtr. per annum.
On the contrary in the cross
examination the said witness –
claimant of L.A.R. No.3780 of 2003
has admitted that he is not aware
with regard to acquisition of the
land in question. He has stated
that the possession was handed over
by his father and he was not
present. Translation of the cross-
Page 17 of 51
Uploaded by JYOTI V. JANI(HC00213) on Fri May 08 2026 Downloaded on : Fri May 08 23:20:56 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/4876/2006 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/04/2026
undefined
examination of the said witness
reads as under:-
“Cross Examination by Shri D.R.
Trivedi for the State. I do not
know about the land acquisition
of my survey number. I do not
know as to the possession of
much my land is handed over. My
father had handed over the
possession of the land. The
possession of the land was
handed over about 25 years ago.
I do not know as to how much
rent was fixed at that time. My
father had taken the rent which
was fixed. My father had
expired before 14 years. My
father did not make any
application for increasing the
rent during his life time. An
application was made 11 years
after the demise of my father.
I do not know as to why did my
father make an application.
Cross examination by Shri I.K.
Shah for the respondent No.2.
It is true that the rent was
fixed on the basis of rate
prevailing at the relevant
time. At present the O.N.G.C.
pay me Rs.20,000 (in words
Rupees Twenty Thousand) per
annum for my land. At present I
do not have any land forPage 18 of 51
Uploaded by JYOTI V. JANI(HC00213) on Fri May 08 2026 Downloaded on : Fri May 08 23:20:56 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATIONC/FA/4876/2006 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/04/2026
undefined
cultivation. It is true that my
father was knowing as to how
much produce was available from
this land prior to the land
acquisition. I did not carry
any cultivation after the death
of my father because my entire
land is acquired by the
O.N.G.C. I am doing agriculture
labour work. I have never gone
to sell the agriculture
produce. It is true that we buy
grain for consumption and so we
know the price otherwise we do
not know the price of other
items. I can not assume the
rent. I have no specific
demand. I do not know as to
what is written in my
application and I do not know
as to how much demand is there.
An advocate approached me for
making this application. I
have not given any details to
the advocate for making an
application. I do not know as
to what is written in my
examination-in-chief by my
advocate. I do not know as to
what is stated in my affidavit
before the court. At present
the O.N.G.C. is paying me the
rent which is sufficient. No
re-examination”
Page 19 of 51
Uploaded by JYOTI V. JANI(HC00213) on Fri May 08 2026 Downloaded on : Fri May 08 23:20:56 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/4876/2006 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/04/2026
undefined
24. No other witness has been
examined on behalf of the
claimants. In the cross
examination, it is admitted by the
aforesaid witness that the rent was
fixed considering the price
prevailing at the relevant time.
There is no other evidence on
record to suggest that at the
relevant time when the rent was
determined and the award was
declared by the Special Land
Acquisition Officer in the year
1980, there was any dispute with
regard to sufficiency of the
compensation/rent. Under sec.35(3)
of the Act, only in case the
Collector and the persons
interested differ as to the
sufficiency of the compensation or
apportionment thereof, the
Collector shall refer such
difference to the decision of the
Court. Under the circumstances,
when there was no dispute raised on
behalf of the claimants as to the
sufficiency of the compensation at
the time when the award was
published by the Special Land
Acquisition Officer in the year
1980 determining the compensation
paid at the rate of 0.35 paise per
sq. mtr. per annum, the Collector
was not required to refer the
dispute to the court. Under the
circumstances, the reference
Page 20 of 51
Uploaded by JYOTI V. JANI(HC00213) on Fri May 08 2026 Downloaded on : Fri May 08 23:20:56 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/4876/2006 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/04/2026
undefined
applications submitted by the
claimants in the year 2001 with
respect of sufficiency of the
compensation/rent itself are not
maintainable. At the relevant time,
the claimants were satisfied with
regard to adequacy of the
compensation, and nothing is on
record that there was any dispute
raised as to the sufficiency of the
compensation/rent. It is also
required to be noted at this stage
that the original land owners have
accepted the compensation/rent at
the rate of 0.35 paise per sq. mtr.
per annum as per the award
dtd.11/8/1980 without raising any
objection. Nothing is on record
that the claimants have, at any
point of time, objected to the
compensation/rent at the rate of
0.35 paise per sq. mtr. per annum.
Under the circumstances, the
findings and observations of the
reference court that it was the
duty of the Collector to refer the
dispute to the reference court and
as the Collector has failed to
perform his duty, the entire
acquisition proceedings and the
award are null and void, require to
be quashed and set aside, as the
same is contrary to the evidence on
record and sub section (3) of
sec.35 of the Act. Even by raising
subsequent dispute, reference
Page 21 of 51
Uploaded by JYOTI V. JANI(HC00213) on Fri May 08 2026 Downloaded on : Fri May 08 23:20:56 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/4876/2006 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/04/2026
undefined
applications under sec.35(3) of the
Act are not maintainable. On fair
reading of entire section 35 of the
Act, sub section (1) of sec.35 of
the Act authorises the appropriate
Government to direct the Collector
to procure the occupation and use
of the same for such terms as it
shall think fit, not exceeding
three years from the commencement
of such occupation. As per Sub
section (2) of sec.35, the
Collector is required to give
notice in writing to the persons
interested in such land of the
purpose for which the same is
needed, and shall, for the
occupation and use thereof, for
such term as aforesaid, and for the
material, (if any), to be taken
therefrom, pay to them such
compensation, either in a gross sum
of money, or by monthly or other
periodical payments, as shall be
agreed upon in writing between him
and such persons respectively. Sub
section (2) of sec.35 will be
attracted when there is an
agreement with respect to the
compensation between the Collector
and the land owner and/or a person
interested in the land. If the
Collector and the persons
interested do not agree and there
is difference as to the sufficiency
of the compensation in that case
Page 22 of 51
Uploaded by JYOTI V. JANI(HC00213) on Fri May 08 2026 Downloaded on : Fri May 08 23:20:56 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/4876/2006 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/04/2026
undefined
the Collector is required to refer
such difference to the decision of
the Court. Therefore, even when the
Collector is required to refer the
dispute to the reference court
under sub section (3) of section 3
of the Act, the same will be only
in respect to such difference as to
the sufficiency of the compensation
between the Collector and the
persons interested. Only such
difference as to the sufficiency of
the compensation, the Collector is
required to refer the dispute to
the decision of the Court. Even
considering sub section (3) of
section 35, there is nothing
provided that the land owner can
submit the application for
referring the dispute to the
reference court as so provided
under sec.18 of the Act in case of
permanent acquisition. In the
present case as stated above, no
such dispute has been raised by the
original land owners as to the
sufficiency of the compensation and
claimants have accepted the
compensation/rent as per the award
dtd.11/8/1980 without raising any
objection and therefore, the
reference applications submitted by
the original claimants are not
maintainable.
Page 23 of 51
Uploaded by JYOTI V. JANI(HC00213) on Fri May 08 2026 Downloaded on : Fri May 08 23:20:56 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/4876/2006 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/04/2026
undefined
25. Even otherwise as stated
above, the Special Land Acquisition
Officer declared the award under
sec.35 of the Act as back as on
11/8/1980 determining the
compensation/rent at the rate of
0.35 paise per sq. mtr. per annum
which was never objected to by the
original land owners / interested
persons, but the same came to be
accepted without raising any
objection and still the respondents
herein – original claimants
submitted the applications for
making reference to the reference
court under sub section (3) of
sec.35 i.e. after a period of 21
years raising the dispute as to
sufficiency of the compensation
which was determined while
declaring award on 11/8/1980. It is
the contention on behalf of the
original claimants that as under
sub section (3) of sec.58 of the
Act on 11/8/2008, no time limit is
prescribed and as it is the duty of
the Collector to refer the dispute
to the Reference Court and as the
Collector has failed to perform the
duty cast upon him, the application
submitted by the claimants are
within the period of limitation
and/or not barred by delay and
laches. It is the contention on
behalf of the appellants and the
Special Land Acquisition OfficerPage 24 of 51
Uploaded by JYOTI V. JANI(HC00213) on Fri May 08 2026 Downloaded on : Fri May 08 23:20:56 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATIONC/FA/4876/2006 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/04/2026
undefined
that when there is no limitation
prescribed, Article 137 of the
Limitation Act would come in
picture and within three years from
the date of cause of action, the
applications could have been made.
It is true that under sub section
(3) of sec.35 of the Act, no
limitation is prescribed. However,
that does not mean that the
application for reference can be
made at any time. Article 137 of
the Limitation Act provides that
when there is no limitation
prescribed or provided, three years
would be the limitation and from
the date of cause of action within
three years, an aggrieved person
can initiate proceedings. The
reference court has misinterpreted
the provisions of Sec.35 of the
Act. While considering the
submissions with regard to the
limitation, the reference court has
held that as the entire land
acquisition proceedings and the
award are null and void, Article
137 of the Limitation Act
(reference court has considered
sec.137 of the Limitation Act
wrongly) would not be applicable,
more particularly when the
Collector has failed to perform the
duty cast upon him, making the
reference to the reference court as
provided under sub section (3) ofPage 25 of 51
Uploaded by JYOTI V. JANI(HC00213) on Fri May 08 2026 Downloaded on : Fri May 08 23:20:56 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATIONC/FA/4876/2006 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/04/2026
undefined
section 35 of the Act. As stated
above, such a findings and the
observations of the Reference Court
are perverse and illegal. As held
by us, there was no dispute with
regard to sufficiency of the
possession raised by the claimants
at the relevant time when the
award was declared, therefore,
there was no occasion for the
Collector to refer the dispute to
the reference court, and we have
also held that the reference
applications are not maintainable.
Even otherwise, assuming that it
was the duty of the Collector to
refer the dispute to the reference
court and when the Collector failed
to perform his duty, in that case
also, the claimants are required to
initiate appropriate proceedings
within reasonable time, as there is
no time limit prescribed under the
Act. Certainly, the claimants
cannot submit the applications
and/or raise the dispute after a
period of 21 years. Thus, on the
ground of delay and laches the
reference applications were not
maintainable. As such when the
applications were submitted after a
period of 21 years raising dispute
with regard to adequacy of the
compensation awarded in the year
1980, the Special Land Acquisition
Officer, ought not to have referred
Page 26 of 51
Uploaded by JYOTI V. JANI(HC00213) on Fri May 08 2026 Downloaded on : Fri May 08 23:20:56 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/4876/2006 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/04/2026
undefined
the dispute to the reference court.
As such the Special Land
Acquisition Officer himself has
committed an error and/or acted
arbitrarily in referring the
dispute to the reference Court
after a period of 21 years.
26. In the case of Laxuman
(supra), while dealing with
sec.18(3) of the Act which also
does not provide any time limit,
the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held
that since the application is to
the Court, though under a special
enactment, Article 137, the
residuary article of the Limitation
Act, 1963, is attracted and the
application has to be made within
three years of the expiry of 90
days from the date of application
under sec.18(1) of the Act made by
the claimant. In the said decision,
the Hon’ble Supreme Court has
considered the another decision of
the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the
case of Additional Special Land
Acquisition Officer Vs. Thakoredas,
reported in (1997) 11 SCC 412. The
Hon’ble Supreme Court has further
observed in the said decision that
the right undisputedly available to
a litigant becomes unenforceable if
the litigant does not approach the
Court within the time prescribed
and the law is for the diligent. It
Page 27 of 51
Uploaded by JYOTI V. JANI(HC00213) on Fri May 08 2026 Downloaded on : Fri May 08 23:20:56 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/4876/2006 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/04/2026
undefined
is also further observed that the
law expects a litigant to seek the
enforcement of a right available to
him within a reasonable time of the
arising of the cause of action.
27.The Calcutta High Court in the
case of Bayer Aktiengesellschft of
Leverkusen Federal Republic of
Germany Vs. Controller of Patents,
Government of India, reported in
AIR 1982 Calcutta 30, while dealing
with sec.71 of the Patents Act,
1970 and Article 137 of the
Limitation Act, 1963 has also held
that If any special or local law
does not prescribe any time for
application to made to Court such
application would be governed by
Article 137.
28.Considering above, the findings
of the reference court that the
applications submitted by the
claimants for making reference
under sub section (3) of sec.35 of
the Act were within the period of
limitation and/or were not barred
by Limitation and/or were not
required to be dismissed on the
ground of delay and laches, are
perverse, illegal and contrary to
the evidence on record and sec.35
of the Act and Article 137 of the
Page 28 of 51
Uploaded by JYOTI V. JANI(HC00213) on Fri May 08 2026 Downloaded on : Fri May 08 23:20:56 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/4876/2006 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/04/2026
undefined
Limitation Act, which require to be
quashed and set aside.
Thus, it is held that the reference
applications submitted by the
claimants under sec.35(3) of the
Act were not maintainable and could
not have been entertained by the
reference court as the same were
barred by the limitation and/or in
the alternative barred by delay and
laches. It is also held that the
reference applications under sub-
section (3) of sec.35 of the Act
were not maintainable at all, as
there was no dispute raised by the
claimants / original owners at the
time when the award was declared
and/or there was no difference as
to the sufficiency of compensation
at the relevant time.
28.Now, that takes us to some of
the findings and observations
recorded by the reference court
which are as under; –
(i) That the entire land
acquisition proceedings and the
award declared by the Special Land
Acquisition Officer are illegal and
null and void.
Page 29 of 51
Uploaded by JYOTI V. JANI(HC00213) on Fri May 08 2026 Downloaded on : Fri May 08 23:20:56 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/4876/2006 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/04/2026
undefined
(ii)The competent authority has not
followed the mandatory provisions
under sec.35 of the Act.
(iii)”Reference Court” under the
provisions of Land Acquisition Act,
have exclusive jurisdiction and
hence, the said jurisdiction
includes jurisdiction to determine
whether a particular proceeding
falls within its jurisdiction or
not. The reference Court has
jurisdiction to decide each and
every fact whether it exists or
not, it is not the proposition of
law that the reference court has no
jurisdiction to decide any question
or dispute except the question or
dispute of compensation. “Reference
Court” has all rights, powers and
authority to adjudicate every
question falling under the ambit of
the provisions of Land Acquisition
Act. The Reference Court has not
only the jurisdiction to decide the
question of quantum of
compensation, but Reference Court
has also jurisdiction to decide all
questions and disputes relating to
and ancillary to the acquired land
and compensation.
(iv)Reference court can order to
surrender the land to the owner or
occupier or interested person by
mandatory order against the
Page 30 of 51
Uploaded by JYOTI V. JANI(HC00213) on Fri May 08 2026 Downloaded on : Fri May 08 23:20:56 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/4876/2006 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/04/2026
undefined
Government or acquiring body as per
the circumstances of each case.
(v)The question of compensation is
residuary clause which arises out
of provisions of sec.35 of the Act.
The Court as a “Reference Court”
has ample powers to restore the
possession after the maximum period
of temporary occupation and use
exceeding three years period to the
owner or occupier or to the
interested person as the case may
be.
(vi)The Special Land Acquisition
Officer who has carried out the
said proceedings under sec.35 of
the Act and passed the order, has
no right, power or authority under
the Act to declare and pass such
award under sec.35 of the Act under
the head of Compensation Case No.38
of 1980 and the same is without
jurisdiction, illegal, arbitrary,
null and void and consequently no
right over the land of the
claimants or interested person or
occupier has been accrued in favour
of the Corporation i.e. ONGC and
the compensation for the land by
acquiring body and it stands in the
category of trespasser and the
possession for the land by
acquiring body and its stands inPage 31 of 51
Uploaded by JYOTI V. JANI(HC00213) on Fri May 08 2026 Downloaded on : Fri May 08 23:20:56 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATIONC/FA/4876/2006 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/04/2026
undefined
the category of trespasser. The
possession of the acquiring body is
illegal and unauthorised right from
the inception and they are
trespassers.
(vii)The reference court has
jurisdiction to award compensation
by way of mesne profit. Now so far
as the aforesaid observations and
findings of the Reference Court in
a references arising out of sub
section (3) of sec.35 of the Act
are per-se perverse, illegal,
without jurisdiction and without
authority under the law. It is
required to be noted that the
Special Land Acquisition Officer
declared the award under sec.35(3)
of the Act on 11/8/1980 being Land
Acquisition Case No.38 of 1980
determining compensation/rent at
the rate of 0.35 paise per sq.mtr.
per annum. All the claimants
submitted the reference
applications before the Special
Land Acquisition Officer on
16/7/2001 under sub-sec.(3) of 35
of the Act, raising objections for
the first time with regard to
adequacy of the compensation/rent
determined in 1980 by submitting
that the compensation/rent
determined by the Special Land
Acquisition Officer vide award
dtd.11/8/1980 is inadequate and
Page 32 of 51
Uploaded by JYOTI V. JANI(HC00213) on Fri May 08 2026 Downloaded on : Fri May 08 23:20:56 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/4876/2006 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/04/2026
undefined
requested for enhancement of the
compensation/rent and the Special
Land Acquisition Officer referred
the said dispute to the reference
court. Thus, what was referred by
the Special Land Acquisition
Officer was the dispute with regard
to adequacy of quantum of
compensation and nothing beyond
that. Even it was not the case of
the claimants that the entire
acquisition proceedings and the
award are illegal and/or null and
void and that ONGC is in illegal
and unauthorised occupation and
possession of the land in question.
Still the reference court has given
the aforesaid findings.
30.In the case of Balaram Chandra
(supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court
while dealing with and considering
the scope, duties and powers of the
reference Court under sec.18 of the
Act, has held that the District
Court (Reference Court) has no
jurisdiction to declare
notification under sections 4(1)
and 6 to be null and void and/or
illegal and he is required to make
award with reference to the
objections raised by the claimants
in respect of area of land or
amount of compensation or persons
entitled to receive compensation
Page 33 of 51
Uploaded by JYOTI V. JANI(HC00213) on Fri May 08 2026 Downloaded on : Fri May 08 23:20:56 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/4876/2006 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/04/2026
undefined
and his duties are confined to the
provisions contained in secs.11, 18
and 20 to 23. It is also further
held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court
in the said decision that the
reference court cannot go beyond
the reference and give a
declaration that the notifications
under secs.4(1) and 6 are illegal
or null and void. It is also held
that the reference court would not
traverse beyond his powers.
31.While taking a similar view, the
Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case
of P.K. Sreekantan (supra),
considering the decision of the
Privy Council and earlier decisions
of the Supreme Court in para 14 has
observed as under:-
“14. Every tribunal of limited
jurisdiction is not entitled but
bound to determine whether the
matter in which it is asked to
exercise its jurisdiction comes
within the limits of its special
jurisdiction and whether the
jurisdiction of such tribunal is
dependent on the existence of
certain facts or circumstances.
Its obvious duty is to see that
these facts and circumstances
exist to invest it with
jurisdiction, and where a
tribunal deserves itsPage 34 of 51
Uploaded by JYOTI V. JANI(HC00213) on Fri May 08 2026 Downloaded on : Fri May 08 23:20:56 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATIONC/FA/4876/2006 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/04/2026
undefined
jurisdiction from the statute
that creates it and that statute
also defines the conditions
under which the tribunal can
function, it goes without saying
that before that tribunal
assumes jurisdiction in a
matter, it must be satisfied
that the conditions requisite
for its acquiring seisin of that
matter have in fact arisen. As
observed by the Privy Council in
Nusserwanjee Pestonjee v. Meer
Mynoodeen Khan LR [(1955) 6
M.I.A. 134 (PC)], whether
jurisdiction is given to a court
by an Act of Parliament and such
jurisdiction is only given upon
certain specified terms
contained in that Act, it is a
universal picture that these
terms must be complied with the
jurisdiction does not arise
[See: Mohammed Hasnuddin v.
State of Maharashtra (1979 (2)
SCC 572)].”
32.In an another decision in the
case of Prayag Upnivesh Avas Nirman
Sahkari Samiti Ltd. (supra) the
Supreme Court has observed and held
that a reference court has no
jurisdiction to decide a matter not
referred to it.
Page 35 of 51
Uploaded by JYOTI V. JANI(HC00213) on Fri May 08 2026 Downloaded on : Fri May 08 23:20:56 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/4876/2006 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/04/2026
undefined
33.Considering the above decisions
and the reference made by the
Special Land Acquisition Officer,
the findings of the reference court
which are reproduced hereinabove
with regard to acquisition
proceedings and award being null
and void and illegal and ONGC –
acquiring body is in unauthorised
and illegal possession and are
trespassers, all such findings are
wholly without jurisdiction and
perverse and without authority
under the law and even beyond the
reference and/or the dispute
referred to the reference court. In
a reference under sec.35 of the
Act, reference court has no
jurisdiction and/or authority under
the law to decide any other
dispute/question other than the
dispute as to the sufficiency of
the compensation and that too with
respect to only such difference as
to the sufficiency of compensation
which has arisen between the
Collector and the persons
interested at the relevant time.
The reference court is not vested
with any other powers to declare
the acquisition proceedings and/or
award null and void and/or illegal
and/or give a finding whether the
acquiring body is in illegal
possession and/or trespasser.
Similarly, the reference court also
Page 36 of 51
Uploaded by JYOTI V. JANI(HC00213) on Fri May 08 2026 Downloaded on : Fri May 08 23:20:56 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/4876/2006 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/04/2026
undefined
has no jurisdiction and/or
authority under the law to restore
possession of the land to the
original land owners in a reference
under sec.35(3) of the Act. On
going through the entire judgement
and award of the Reference Court,
It appears that the entire
judgement and award runs into
approximately 82 pages and
considering the same, it appears
that the reference court has tried
to show his knowledge without
proper application of mind to the
issues and without appreciating the
fact that he has no jurisdiction to
decide any other dispute other than
the dispute as to the sufficiency
of compensation and that he is
dealing with the reference under
sec.35(3) of the Act. The reference
court has tried to show his
knowledge by referring to various
judgments unnecessarily and has
given findings without any
jurisdiction. The reference court
has exercised the jurisdiction not
vested in it and has decided the
questions not referred to it and/or
which have not arisen at all.
34.It is also required to be noted
at this stage that even the issues
which are framed by the reference
court are:-
Page 37 of 51
Uploaded by JYOTI V. JANI(HC00213) on Fri May 08 2026 Downloaded on : Fri May 08 23:20:56 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/4876/2006 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/04/2026
undefined
“(i) Whether the applicant proves
that the compensation awarded is
inadequate?
(ii)What additional compensation,
if any, he is entitled to?
(iii)What award and decree?.
No other issues have been framed by
the reference court. No issue,
whether the acquisition proceedings
and the award declared by the
Special Land Acquisition Officer
under sec.35(3) of the Act are
illegal and/or non-est, has been
framed by the reference court. No
issue, whether the acquiring body
is a trespasser and/or they are in
illegal and unauthorised occupation
and possession of the land in
question, has been framed by the
reference court. The reference
court has not framed issue with
regard to limitation, though in the
written statement specific
contention has been raised that the
reference applications are time
barred and/or they are required to
be dismissed on the ground of
delay. As per Sec.53 of the Act,
save in so far as they may be
inconsistent with anything
contained in the Act, the
provisions of the [Code of Civil
Page 38 of 51
Uploaded by JYOTI V. JANI(HC00213) on Fri May 08 2026 Downloaded on : Fri May 08 23:20:56 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/4876/2006 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/04/2026
undefined
Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908)] shall
apply to all proceedings before the
Court under the Act. No decision
and/or finding can be given without
framing any issue and drawing
attention of the parties to the
proceedings to the said issues.
Thus, even on this ground also, the
findings of the reference court
that the entire acquisition
proceedings and the award declared
by the Special Land Acquisition
Officer are illegal and non-est and
that the acquiring body – ONGC is
in illegal and unauthorised
occupation and possession of the
land in question and that they are
trespasser, also cannot be
sustained without framing any
proper issue.
35.It has come on record that not
only the claimants have accepted
the amount of compensation/rent
determined by the Special Land
Acquisition Officer while declaring
the award on 11/8/1980, but even
thereafter, the ONGC has enhanced
the amount of compensation/rent at
the interval of every three years
from time to time and the said
enhanced compensation/rent has been
accepted by the claimants without
raising any objection. In such
circumstances, the reference court
Page 39 of 51
Uploaded by JYOTI V. JANI(HC00213) on Fri May 08 2026 Downloaded on : Fri May 08 23:20:56 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/4876/2006 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/04/2026
undefined
could not have declared ONGC as
trespassers. It is also required to
be noted at this stage that even
the findings of the dereference
court with regard to possession of
the acquiring body are also self
contradictory. The reference court
in para 31 has observed that “this
is simple case of assumption of
quantum of compensation on the
ground of mesne profit as the
opponent No.2 ONGC are permissive
user and occupier of the land
specifically stated in Compensation
Case No.38/80.” Even after para
31(iii), the reference court has
observed as under:-
“The opp.No.2 ONGC is in
possession of the land which has
been acquired under the
provision of Section 35 of the
Land Acquisition Act by the
Competent Authority under the
said Act and till then, they are
in possession of the land and
hence their possession can be
called permissive possession.”
36.Inspite of the above, the
reference court has held that the
ONGC – acquiring body is in illegal
and unauthorised possession of the
land in question and they are
trespasser. Even otherwise, as
Page 40 of 51
Uploaded by JYOTI V. JANI(HC00213) on Fri May 08 2026 Downloaded on : Fri May 08 23:20:56 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/4876/2006 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/04/2026
undefined
stated above, ONGC – acquiring body
has increased quantum of
compensation/rent at the interval
of every three years substantially,
which have been accepted by the
claimants without any objections
and therefore it can be said that
the claimants have impliedly and/or
by necessary conduct have agreed
with the possession and occupation
of the land by ONGC and continue to
occupy the possession by the ONGC.
As such all these questions and the
disputes are not required to be
dealt with and considered in a
reference under sec.35(3) of the
Act. Whether there is any implied
extension of contract etc. all are
questions which are required to be
decided and dealt with in
appropriate proceedings when a suit
is filed before the civil court.
37.Now so far as the amount of
compensation awarded by the
reference court and the operative
portion of the order which is
reproduced hereinabove in para 1 of
the judgement, the reference court
has awarded the compensation even
for the period beyond three years
i.e. till date and even for future
also. As held by this Court in the
case of Oil & Natural Gas
Page 41 of 51
Uploaded by JYOTI V. JANI(HC00213) on Fri May 08 2026 Downloaded on : Fri May 08 23:20:56 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/4876/2006 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/04/2026
undefined
Commission Vs. Pandya Prahladbhai
Manilal and Ors., reported in 2006
(3) GLH 662 and in the case of
Patel Shambhubhai Bhaichanddas Vs.
State of Gujarat, reported in 2007
(2) GLH 272, the reference court,
in temporary acquisition under
sec.35 of the Act, has no
jurisdiction to determine
sufficiency of compensation for
retention of the land beyond the
period of three years. In other-
way, the Collector in a reference
under sec.35 has power to determine
sufficiency of compensation only
for retention of land upto a
maximum period of three years and
recourse to possession after the
stipulated period can be sought
only by remedy provided under
common law. This court is in
complete agreement with the
aforesaid two decisions. Thus, even
the order passed by the reference
court awarding compensation beyond
the period of three years in a
reference under sec.35 of the Act,
is wholly without jurisdiction. In
the present case, even the question
may arise whether in view of the
periodical rise given by ONGC at
the interval of every three years,
which have been accepted by the
claimants without raising any
objection, whether the claimants
are entitled to raise dispute with
Page 42 of 51
Uploaded by JYOTI V. JANI(HC00213) on Fri May 08 2026 Downloaded on : Fri May 08 23:20:56 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/4876/2006 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/04/2026
undefined
regard to sufficiency of
compensation/rent.
38.Even while determining the
quantum of compensation, the
reference court has misinterpreted
the evidence and the cross
examination of the claimant who has
been examined on behalf of all the
claimants at Ex.11, which has been
reproduced hereinabove. The
claimant has specifically stated in
his cross examination that he has
no knowledge about the income
derived from the land in question;
he has no personal knowledge what
amount he has asked in the
reference application; he does not
know the contents of the reference
application; he also does not know
on what basis the amount of
compensation/rent is sought to be
increased. He has specifically
admitted that he has not given any
instructions to the advocate and in
fact, the advocate himself has
written everything. He has also
admitted that he has no account
and/or evidence to justify income
of Rs.40,000, as stated in the
examination-in-chief. However, the
reference court has held that the
claimant has proved the income of
Rs.40,000 per annum derived from
the land in question. It is also
Page 43 of 51
Uploaded by JYOTI V. JANI(HC00213) on Fri May 08 2026 Downloaded on : Fri May 08 23:20:56 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/4876/2006 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/04/2026
undefined
required to be noted that no
documentary evidence has been
produced with regard to the income
derived from the land in question.
In absence of any documentary
evidence, the reference court could
not have given any finding with
regard to income of Rs.40,000
derived from the land in question.
Thus, even otherwise, the finding
with respect to the income by the
reference court is perverse and on
misreading of the evidence and the
same is on no evidence. The
operative portion of the order
awarding compensation to the
claimants at the enhanced rate
periodically is also without
jurisdiction and based on no
evidence. Even the amount of
compensation/rent awarded by the
reference court seems to be more
than the compensation paid for
permanent acquisition. The
directions issued by the reference
court in para 49 to 51 and
operative portion of the judgement
in para 52, are all without
jurisdiction and de-hors the
provisions of the Act. The
reference court has issued certain
directions with regard to interest,
as if the reference court is
dealing with the reference with
regard to permanent acquisition.
The reference court has failed to
Page 44 of 51
Uploaded by JYOTI V. JANI(HC00213) on Fri May 08 2026 Downloaded on : Fri May 08 23:20:56 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/4876/2006 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/04/2026
undefined
appreciate that it was dealing with
the reference with respect to
temporary acquisition of land under
sec.35(3) of the Act. Thus, the
impugned judgement and award
require to be quashed and set
aside.
39.At this stage it is required to
be noted and it appears from the
judgement and award that the
reference court has awarded
compensation/rent by way of mesne
profit by giving contradictory
findings with regard to possession
and occupation of the ONGC. As
stated hereinabove, the reference
court has no jurisdiction to decide
any dispute de-hors the dispute
referred to it. It is also held
that the reference court has no
jurisdiction to restore the
possession of the land owners. The
competent Civil Court can award
mesne profit only in a suit for
possession and when it is found
that the occupier is in illegal
possession and that the mesne
profit can be awarded by that court
who can pass a decree for
possession. In the present case as
stated above, the Reference Court
has no jurisdiction to restore the
possession and consequently, pass a
decree for possession in a
Page 45 of 51
Uploaded by JYOTI V. JANI(HC00213) on Fri May 08 2026 Downloaded on : Fri May 08 23:20:56 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/4876/2006 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/04/2026
undefined
reference under sec.35(3) of the
Act. Under the circumstances also,
the directions issued by the
reference court in the award to pay
mesne profit as compensation, are
also required to be quashed and set
aside as the same is without
jurisdiction.
40.Before parting with the present
judgement, it is required to be
noted and it is brought to our
notice that in more than 100 cases
like present one, the concerned
Special Land Acquisition Officer,
Mehsana has referred the references
to the reference court which have
been made after a period of more
than 20 years and the very
reference court (Mr.J.R. Shah,
Principal Senior Civil Judge,
Mehsana) has entertained the
reference applications and has
acted beyond the scope of the
reference and has passed the
judgement and awards with the
similar findings and observations
which are without jurisdiction.
Thus, we are of the considered
opinion that the conduct of the
reference court (Mr.J.R. Shah, the
then Principal Senior Civil Judge,
Mehsana) is required to be
considered seriously on
administrative side. Under the
Page 46 of 51
Uploaded by JYOTI V. JANI(HC00213) on Fri May 08 2026 Downloaded on : Fri May 08 23:20:56 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/4876/2006 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/04/2026
undefined
circumstances, the registry is
directed to place the judgement and
award impugned in these appeals,
along with other similar judgement
and awards passed by the reference
court (Mr.J.R. Shah, the then
Principal Senior Civil Judge,
Mehsana) before the Hon’ble the
Chief Justice and concerned
Administrative Judge to consider
the same on administrative side.
41.Similarly, even the conduct and
the action of the then Special Land
Acquisition Officer, who has
referred the references
applications in more than 100 cases
to the reference court, though the
applications for reference were
filed after a period of more than
20 years, is also required to be
considered seriously at the hands
of Government. Under the
circumstances, Chief Secretary,
Revenue Department is directed to
hold necessary inquiry against the
concerned Special Land Acquisition
Officer with regard to his conduct
and actions. Registry is directed
to communicate this order to the
Chief Secretary, Revenue
Department, State of Gujarat for
compliance.
42.For the reasons stated
hereinabove, all the appeals
Page 47 of 51
Uploaded by JYOTI V. JANI(HC00213) on Fri May 08 2026 Downloaded on : Fri May 08 23:20:56 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/4876/2006 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/04/2026
undefined
succeed and are allowed with costs
which is quantified at Rs.5000
(Rupees Five Thousand only) per
each appeal. The impugned common
judgement and award dtd. 15/10/2005
passed by the learned Principal
Senior Civil Judge, Mehsana
(Mr.J.R. Shah) in Land Reference
Case Nos.3780 to 3784 of 2003 is
hereby quashed and set aside and it
is held that :-
(i) The reference applications
submitted by the original claimants
were not maintainable.
(ii)The reference applications were
required to be dismissed on the
ground of limitation considering
Article 137 of the Limitation Act.
In the alternate, the same were
required to be dismissed on the
ground of delay and laches.
(iii)The reference court has no
power, authority, competence and/or
jurisdiction to decide the dispute
de-hors the reference made to him.
(iv)The reference court has no
jurisdiction to decide any other
question except the difference as
to sufficiency of compensation in
a reference under sec.35(3) of the
Act.
Page 48 of 51
Uploaded by JYOTI V. JANI(HC00213) on Fri May 08 2026 Downloaded on : Fri May 08 23:20:56 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/4876/2006 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/04/2026
undefined
(v)The reference court has no
jurisdiction to declare acquisition
proceedings and the award declared
by the Special Land Acquisition
Officer under sec.35(3) of the Act
as illegal and/or non-est in a
reference under sec.35(3) of the
Act.
(vi)The reference court has no
jurisdiction to declare possession
of the acquiring body as illegal
and/or unauthorised and
consequently the reference court
has no jurisdiction to declare the
ONGC – acquiring body as trespasser
that too without framing any issue.
(vii)The reference court has no
jurisdiction to award compensation
by way of mesne profit declaring
compensation of the acquiring body
as illegal and unauthorised.
(viii)The reference court has also
no jurisdiction to award statutory
benefits and/or interest, as
awarded by the reference court, as
if the acquisition proceedings is a
permanent acquisition.
Page 49 of 51
Uploaded by JYOTI V. JANI(HC00213) on Fri May 08 2026 Downloaded on : Fri May 08 23:20:56 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/4876/2006 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/04/2026
undefined
(ix)The reference court has no
jurisdiction to determine the
dispute with regard to sufficiency
of the compensation beyond the
period of three years from the date
of tasking the possession.
(x)The Reference Court has no
jurisdiction to restore the
possession of the land to the
original owners while deciding the
reference under sec.35(3) of the
Act.”
18. In view of the above adopting the same
reason in similar facts of these
appeals, these appeals also succeed and
are accordingly allowed. The impugned
common Judgement and Award dated
19.10.2005 passed by the learned
Principal Senior Civil Judge, Mehsana,
in Land Reference Case Nos. 5492 to
5494 of 2003 is hereby quashed and set
aside.
Page 50 of 51
Uploaded by JYOTI V. JANI(HC00213) on Fri May 08 2026 Downloaded on : Fri May 08 23:20:56 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/4876/2006 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/04/2026
undefined
19. In view of the disposal of the appeals,
Civil Applications would not survive
and are accordingly disposed of.
(BHARGAV D. KARIA, J)
(L. S. PIRZADA, J)
JYOTI V. JANI
Page 51 of 51
Uploaded by JYOTI V. JANI(HC00213) on Fri May 08 2026 Downloaded on : Fri May 08 23:20:56 IST 2026
[ad_1]
Source link
