1994 (2) TMI 324 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues:
1. Interpretation of the limitation period for making a reference to the Civil Court under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.
2. Application of Article 137 of the Schedule to the Limitation Act, 1963 in cases involving special statutes.
3. Effect of the amended provisions of Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, specifically Sub-sections 3(a) and 3(b).

Analysis:
1. The appeals stemmed from a High Court judgment regarding a reference made by the Deputy Commissioner under Section 11 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The respondents sought a reference to the Civil Court after the Deputy Commissioner did not act on their request within the specified period. The High Court, following precedent, allowed the reference despite the delay in application. However, the Supreme Court noted that Article 137 of the Limitation Act applies to applications filed under special statutes to Civil Courts. Since the application was made beyond three years from the accrual of the cause of action, it was barred by limitation. The High Court's decision was overturned, and the respondent's application was rejected.

2. The Land Acquisition Act was amended to include provisions specifying the time limit for making a reference to the Civil Court. The amended Section 18 required the Deputy Commissioner to refer cases within 90 days of receiving an application. If no reference was made, the applicant could request the Court to direct the Deputy Commissioner to do so. In this case, the Deputy Commissioner failed to make the reference within the prescribed period, allowing the respondents to approach the Civil Court. However, the application needed to be made within the limitation period under Article 137 of the Limitation Act, as no specific period was provided in the Act itself. As the application was filed beyond three years, it was time-barred.

3. The Supreme Court clarified that the cause of action for seeking a reference under Section 18 of the Act arose upon the service of the award. The amended provisions of Section 18 set a clear timeline for the Deputy Commissioner to make a reference, failing which the applicant could seek Court intervention. In this case, the respondents' application was made beyond the permissible time frame, rendering it invalid. The Court emphasized the importance of adhering to limitation periods, especially in cases involving special statutes, to ensure timely and efficient resolution of disputes.