Reference applications under Section 35(3) filed after twenty years are barred by limitation and delay.

The lands of the respondents (located in Village Santhal, Mehsana) were temporarily acquired by the appellant (ONGC) under Section 35 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.

The Land Acquisition Officer passed an award on May 18, 1981, fixing rent at Rs. 0.42 per sq. mtr.

On December 20, 2002—over 21 years later—the claimants sought a reference for higher compensation.

During this interval, part of the land was permanently acquired in 1989 and the remainder surrendered in 1990.

The Reference Court entertained the late applications, enhanced the rent to Rs. 3 per sq. mtr. starting from the possession date, and ordered a 15% annual increase along with interest.

1. Whether a reference application under Section 35(3) of the Act, 1894, is maintainable when filed after an inordinate delay of 21 years

2. Whether the Reference Court has the jurisdiction to determine compensation for temporary occupation beyond the statutory maximum period of three years or to award future rent increases

3. Whether the Reference Court exceeded its jurisdiction by declaring the acquisition proceedings null and void or labeling the acquiring body as a "trespasser"

The court applied Section 35 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, which governs temporary occupation of land for a maximum of three years; specifically, Section 35(3) requires the Collector to refer disputes regarding "sufficiency of compensation" to the Court.

Since the Act prescribes no specific limitation for Section 35(3), the court applied Article 137 of the Limitation Act, 1963 (the residuary clause), which imposes a three-year limit from the date the cause of action arises.

The court relied on ONGC v. Shankarji Hemaji (2008) 2 GLR 1226 and Additional Special Land Acquisition Officer v. Thakoredas (1997) 11 SCC 412, establishing that reference courts cannot decide issues beyond the scope of the reference and that litigants must be diligent.

The High Court found that the claimants accepted the 1981 rent award without contemporary protest; therefore, no "difference" existed for the Collector to refer under Section 35(3).

Applying Article 137 of the Limitation Act, the court determined that a 21-year delay was fatal, as legal remedies are for the diligent and cannot be invoked after such a lapse of time.

The Court noted that Section 35 limited temporary occupation to three years; consequently, the Reference Court lacked jurisdiction to award "future rent" or "mesne profits" for periods exceeding that term.

The High Court also rebuked the lower court for declaring the ONGC a "trespasser" and the proceedings "null and void," holding that a Reference Court is a tribunal of limited jurisdiction and cannot traverse beyond the specific questions referred to it.

The High Court allowed the appeals and quashed the common judgment and award dated October 19, 2005. The Court ordered the registry to place the conduct of the presiding officer of the Reference Court before the Chief Justice for administrative review and directed the Chief Secretary to inquire into the conduct of the Special Land Acquisition Officer.