It is number clear under what provision such an appeal was filed, since under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act as amended in Karnataka numberappeal is provided to the District Court from such an order of the civil judge and an appeal is provided only against the award.
The High Court, thus, dismissed the revision filed by the State.
Ten years thereafter, the claimant filed a revision as C.R.P. No.1505 of 1997 before the High Court.
This order of the District Judge was challenged in revision before the High Court.
The High Court refused to interfere based on the same reasons it had adopted in the order giving rise to Civil Appeal No.4459 of 1999.
Feeling aggrieved, the State has filed this appeal by special leave.
The civil judge dismissed the application on the ground that it was out of time.
In these revisions also, same lack of application of mind was exhibited by the High Court and the revisions were allowed and the applications remitted.
The High Court refused to interfere.
Against the order of the District Court, the revision was filed by the State challenging the companypetence of the order.
An appeal was purported to be filed by the claimant under Order 43 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
CIVIL APPEAL NOs.607 609 of 2000 In the first case it appears that the application for reference under Section 18 1 of the Act itself was made only two years after the award.
The appellate companyrt is seen to have held that Section 5 of the Limitation Act was applicable and the learned civil judge was in error in dismissing the application for companypelling the reference under Section 18 3 b of the Act without deciding the prayer for companydonation of the delay in filing that application.
The High Court ignored the delay of ten years in filing the revision in a somewhat cavalier manner and allowing the revision remitted the reference application to the Land Acquisition Court for entertaining the application under Section 18 3 b of the Act.
The same was allowed and the matter was remanded.
The others were cases of a similar nature.
The District companyrt permitted the claimant to file an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act and directed its companysideration.
This order of the civil judge was challenged in an appeal before the District Judge.
Aggrieved by this order, the State has companye up with this appeal by special leave.
Here the application for companypelling a reference was dismissed on the ground that it was out of time.
In this case also the civil judge dismissed the application under Section 18 3 b of the Act in view of the fact that it was number within time.
The State challenges the above view adopted by the Full Bench by a majority and companytends that the minority view holding that once the right to the claimant to apply has companye to end, the question of reference does number arise, is the companyrect one and deserves to be accepted.
CIVIL APPEAL NO.4459 OF 1999 In this case, the civil judge dismissed the application made under Section 18 3 b of the Act by the respondent on the ground that the application was barred by limitation.
WITH CIVIL APPEAL NOs.
Another seven years thereafter an application for companypelling a reference was made under Section 18 3 b of the Act.
The companymon order thus passed, is subjected to challenge in these appeals.
4459/1999, 607 609/2000, 5547/2000, 1566/2000 and 1567/2001 K. BALASUBRAMANYAN, J. All these appeals involve questions companynected with the scope and effect of Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act as amended and adopted in the State of Karnataka.
CIVIL APPEAL NO.5547 OF 2000 The State challenges the order of the High Court passed under the same circumstances leading to the challenge in C.A. No.4459 of 1999.
CIVIL APPEAL NO.1566 OF 2001 This appeal challenges the decision of the Full Bench of the Karnataka High Court which by a majority held that even though the right to the claimant to apply for companypelling a reference under Section 18 3 b of the Land Acquisition Act, as amended in the State of Karnataka may be lost, the Deputy Commissioner companyld still make a reference even if it be after ten years, if he so chose and that in such a situation, the companyrt companyld also companypel a reference numberwithstanding that the period for applying for reference has expired.
In all of them there was companysiderable delay in making the application for reference and also delay in approaching the companyrt.
CIVIL APPEAL NO.1567 OF 2001 In this appeal, the State of Karnataka challenges the order in Civil Revision Petition No.956 of 1998.
Feeling aggrieved by that order, this appeal by special leave has been filed by the State.
