Shivashankar Bhat, J. - (1.) The lower court has held that the reference made under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act (for short 'the Act') to be invalid as the same was barred by limitation. The claimant has come up with this revision petition.
(2.) There is no dispute that the application seeking reference was made within the prescribed period, under Section 18(1) of the Act. However, reference was made beyond 3 years and 90 days from the date of the application in this case, reference was received by the lower court after a lapse of more than 7 years. The lower court relied upon the decision of a Division Bench of this Court in Assistant Commissioner v Lakshmi Bai [ILR 1987 Kar. 2132] (referred hereinafter as Lakshmi Bai's case) to hold that since the right of the claimant to move the court for a direction to the Dy.Commissioner to make the reference under Section 18(3)(b) gets barred by limitation after 3 years 90 days from the date of the first application under Section 18(1), the statutory obligation to make the reference ceases and hence the reference made after the cessation of the obligation will be invalid.
(3.) The claimant's learned counsel relies on two unreported decisions of the learned Chief Justice in support of the revision petition. However, according to Sri Ajit Gunjal the learned Government Pleader, the question is covered by the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in Lakshmi Bai's case and this was not brought to the notice of the learned Chief Justice, when his Lordship made the order in C.R.P. Nos. 305 to 310 of 1988 - decided on 11th March, 1988. The learned Government Pleader urged for a fresh consideration of the question in the light of the decision in Lakshmi Bai's case. The Lakshmi Bai's case resolved the conflict of views expressed by two learned single Judges of this Court in Uppara Basappa's case (ILR 1986 Kar. 2102) and Gwalior Rayon Silk Manufacturing (Weaving) Company's case (ILR 1982 Kar. 347). The Division Bench in Lakshmi Bat's case, agreed with the opinion of Justice K.A. Swami in Gwalior Rayon's case. The sole question on which there was a divergence of opinion, was, whether the reference made by the Dy. Commissioner under Section 18 of the Act, after the expiry of 90 days from the date of the application made to him under Section 18(1), was a competent reference, when the said reference was within 3 years from the expiry of the said 90 days.;