Tulzapurkar, J. - (1.) Since common questions arise for decision in these three matters, they have been placed before us together and we shall dispose them of by a common judgment. How-ever, it will be sufficient if the facts pertaining to one of the petitions viz. in Special Civil Application No. 1769 of 1976 are stated.
(2.) The petitioners in Special Civil Application No. 1769 of 1976 were the Owners of a plot of open land bearing City Survey No. 5 (original Survey No. 28A. Hissa No. 7 part) admeasuring 1093 2/3 sq. yards situate at Nawapada, Thana. An area admeasuring about 907 sq. yards out of the petitioners' aforesaid plot of land was acquired by the State Government for the purposes of Naupada Police Station under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act No. 1 of 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), leaving an area of 1862/3 sq. yards (132 sq. yards on the southern side and 54 2/3 sq. yards on the northern side) with the petitioners. In respect of this area of 907 sq. yards the relevant noti- fication under Section 4 of the Act was Issued on 20-3-1971 which was followed by Section 6 notification on 30-4-1972. It appears that in the meantime, possession of that area was taken on 4-7-1972 under the urgency clause contained in Section 17 of the Act. Pursuant to the notice that was issued under Section 9 of the Act, the petitioners preferred compensation claim to the Special Land Acquisition Officer at the rate of Rs. 200 per sq. yard. The petitioners also claimed damages at the same rate for the portion of 186 2/3 sq. yards left with them on the ground that that much area was rendered useless to them for any purpose whatsoever by reason of severance caused as denned under the provisions of the Act. The Special Land Acquisition Officer made his award on 31-12-1973 awarding compensation for 907 sq. yards at the rate of Rs. 95 per sq. yard. The total amount of compensation awarded to the petitioners was fixed at Rupees 1,03,713.09 paise. Notice of the making of the award was served on the petitioners under Section 12 (2) of the Act on 4-1-1974. On that very day, the petitioners applied for a certified copy of the award which became ready for delivery to them on 1-3-1974. The copy was actually received by the petitioners on 5-3-1974 and the petitioners filed an application under Section 18 (1) of the Act seeking a reference to the Civil Court on 30-3-1974. While seeking this reference by their said application, the petitioners claimed an additional amount of Rupees 1,60,954.18 principally on the ground that the compensation awarded at the rate of Rs. 95 per sq. yard was highly inadequate, that nothing was awarded for injurious severance, and interest was also claimed from 4-7-1972 to 31-12-1973 the period between the date they lost possession and the award came to be made. The Special Land Acquisition Officer was pleased to make the reference to the District Court of Thana, under Section 18 of the Act, which reference came to be numbered as Thana Land Acquisition Reference No. 22 of 1974. When the reference came up for hearing before the Joint Judge, Thana, a contention on behalf of the Special Land Acquisition Officer was raised that the reference was not maintainable inasmuch as the application for reference made to the Land Acquisition Officer was made beyond the period of limita- tion prescribed under Section 18 of the Act. It was urged that since the notice of the award under Section 12 (2) of the Act had been served on the petitioners on 4-1-1974 the prescribed period which commenced from that date expired after the expiry of six weeks and the application for reference having been made on 30-3-1974, the same was barred by limitation under Proviso (b) to Section 18 (2) of the Act. On behalf of the petitioners two or three contentions were raised before the learned Joint Judge. In the first place, it was contended that once the reference was made by the Special Land Acquisition Officer or by the Collector it was not open to the District Court or the Civil Court to go back upon the reference and to question the maintainability of the reference on the ground of limitation as was sought to be done. Secondly, it was contended that the time that was taken by the petitioners to obtain the certified copy of the award should be excluded while computing the prescribed period of limitation and that if the period between 4-1-1974 and 1-3-1974 was so excluded, the application for reference was within time It was thirdly contended that in any case Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 was applicable to the proceedings and the Special Land Acquisition Officer or the Collector must be taken to have condoned the delay if any in making the application, for the delay was not at all due to any negligence or inaction on the part of the petitioners and as such the application for reference should be regarded as having been filed within time and the reference was maintainable. The learned Joint Judge who heard the matter by his order dated 1-10-1975 negatived all the contentions that were urged on behalf of the petitioners and accepted the objection to the maintainability of the reference urged on behalf of the Special Land Acquisition Officer and came to the conclusion that as the application for reference was barred by time, the reference could not be entertained and he therefore ultimately rejected the reference. It is this order passed by the Joint Judge, Thana, that has been challenged by the petitioners before us in this special civil application.
(3.) So far as Civil Revision Application No. 736 of 1975 is concerned, the Special Land Acquisition Officer himself refused to make the reference and rejected the application for reference on the ground that the application seeking reference had been filed on 26-11-1974 i.e. after the expiry of time limit as provided under Section 18 (2) of the Act inasmuch as the contents of the award were known to the Chairman of the petitioner-Society when he received the notice under Section 12 (2) of the Act on 5-10-1974. From this order passed by the Special Land Acquisition Officer the Chairman of the petitioner-Society has filed this revision application to this Court.;