1. By this appeal, the State of Maharashtra takes exception to the judgment and order dated 2nd May, 1991 passed by the District Court, Raigad on reference under Section 18 of Land Acquisition Act, 1894.

2. The land under reference has been acquired by the government for New Bombay Project. The compensation awarded by *2 * the Special Land Acquisition Officer, Metro Centre No.VI, Panvel for the land, trees and well are Rs.24,898.32p, Rs.83,629/- and Rs.500/- respectively. The possession of the land, trees and well was handed over to the Special Land Acquisition Officer on 9th September,1986 and the payment of compensation was made on 20th October, 1986. The respondents are the heirs and legal representatives of the original claimant Ambya. The original claimant was not satisfied with the compensation awarded by the Special Land Acquisition Officer. He claimed that the market value of the acquired land was at the rate of Rs.20/- per sq.mtr. Therefore, he filed the reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 for enhancement of the compensation payable. During pendency of the reference, the original claimant died and the present respondents were brought on record as his heirs and legal representatives. On 19th September 1990, the respondents amended the reference to claim enhanced compensation in respect of the fruit-bearing trees and the well situate on the land.

According to the appellant, this claim for enhanced compensation for the trees and well situate on the land is barred by limitation provided under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. The appellant also contended that the compensation awarded by the Special Land Acquisition Officer was adequate and the same did not require any revision. The *3 * learned District Judge considered the rival contentions of the parties and enhanced the compensation for the land from Rs.5/-

per sq.mt to Rs.7/- per sq.mt and awarded additional compensation of Rs.96,621.68p for the land. He valued the trees on the land separately and awarded additional compensation of Rs.3,62,971/- to the respondents. As regards the well, the learned judge enhanced the compensation by Rs.1500/-. Alongwith the above additional compensation, the respondents are granted benefits under Section 23(1A), 23(2) and 28 of Land Acquisition Act.

3. Though the challenge in the present appeal is to the entire enhancement of the compensation, Ms.Mulekar the learned AGP states that the appellant restricts the challenge only to the enhancement of compensation in respect of the trees and well situate on the land above. This is because, the question of enhancement of compensation in respect of the land has already been considered by this court in another First Appeal.

The respondents had filed an Appeal being First Appeal No. 104 of 1992 from the impugned judgment and order praying for enhancement of the compensation awarded in respect of the land.

That appeal came to be decided by the order dated 4th March, 2003. The Appeal was disposed off on the basis of common judgment and order dated 18th July, 2001 passed in a group of appeals arising out of references in respect of grant of *4 * compensation for several adjoining lands acquired under the same notification. For the sake of convenience, the order dated 4th March, 2003 is reproduced below :

". For the reasons mentioned in First Appeal No. 462 of 1990, this appeal is allowed. The claim of the claimants stands decreed at the rate of Rs.10 per sq.mts. The solatium interest be calculated accordingly as per provisions of Sections 23(2) and 28 of Land Acquisition Act. The state shall be entitled to the deduction at the rate of 10% of the entire compensation. The appeal is accordingly allowed. In so far as the contention of not granting of adequate compensation of lands, trees and well is concerned, the findings recorded by the Land Acquisition Officer is proper. No interference is called for. No order as to costs. "

. It can be seen that by the above order, there is further revision and enhancement of compensation in respect of the land from Rs.7/- per sq.mt to Rs.10/- per sq.mt. As regards compensation for trees and well is concerned, the compensation awarded by Land Acquisition Officer was held to be proper. Ideally the present appeal and First Appeal No. 104 of 1992 ought to have been heard and decided together. However, unfortunately the present appeal was not placed for hearing alongwith the First Appeal No. 104 of 1992. Be that as it may, *5 * in view of the above order passed the appellant is limiting the challenge to the impugned order in the present appeal to the additional compensation in respect of the trees and well above.

4. Ms.Mulekar submits that the appellant challenges the impugned order essentially on two grounds, firstly, on the ground of limitation and secondly on the ground of separate valuation of the land and the trees for award of compensation.

Therefore, the two questions that fall for our consideration in this appeal are that :

(i) Whether the claim of respondents for enhanced compensation made by way of amendment of the reference on 19th September, 1990 is barred by the limitation provided under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, and

(ii) Whether there can be separate determination of compensation for land as well as for fruit-bearing trees situate on the land.

5. Ms. Mulekar, submits that the claim of the respondent made in the reference for enhanced compensation for the trees and the well situate on the land made by way of *6 * amendment of the reference is barred by limitation provided under Section 18 of Land Acquisition Act. The learned trial judge has negatived the contention of the appellant on the ground that the claim for compensation for the trees and well is not a new claim. The respondents had already made that claim in the reference. The Special Land Acquisition Officer had also awarded compensation for the trees and therefore according to the impugned order, enhanced compensation claimed by way of amendment does not constitute a new cause of action. It does not alter the nature of the reference. The learned judge has also taken into consideration the fact that the appellant has not challenged the order of amendment to hold that the claim regarding enhanced compensation for the trees and well is not barred by limitation.

6. Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act provides for reference to the court and procedure thereon. The proviso to Section 18(2) prescribes the period of limitation within which reference to the civil court under Section 18 is to be made.

The same reads as under :

"18(2)....Provided that every such application shall be made-

(a) if the person making it was present or represented before the Collector at the time when he made his award, within six weeks from the date of the *7 * Collectors' award;

(b) in other cases, within six weeks of the receipt of the notice from the Collector under Section 12, sub- section (2), or within six months from the date of the Collectors' award, whichever period shall first expire."

7. The record does not indicate whether the respondents were present or represented before the Collector at the time the Award was made. It is nobodys' case that notice of the Award under Section 12(2) was given by the Collector.

Therefore, as per the provision of section 18 the period of limitation for filing reference was six months from the date of the Collectors' Award. The Award of the Collector was made on 4th July, 1986. The possession of the acquired lands was taken on 9th September, 1986 and the payment of compensation was made on 29th September, 1986. The reference came to be filed within the prescribed period of limitation. However, about four years thereafter, i.e. on 19th September, 1990 the reference was amended for enhancing the claim of compensation for trees and well situate on the land. If the date of amendment of the reference i.e. 19th September, 1990 is to be taken into consideration, the claim for further enhancement made by way of amendment is clearly barred by limitation. Even the *8 * respondents do not dispute that if the date of amendment of reference is to be taken into consideration, the claim for enhanced compensation in respect of the trees and well would be barred by limitation. However, Mr.Surana learned counsel for the respondents, submits that, in the absence of challenge to the order of amendment, the amendment would relate back to the date of filing of the reference and in that event, it cannot be said to be barred by limitation. Undoubtedly, ordinarily, amendment of pleadings relates back to the date of filing of the proceedings. However, the proposition cannot be extended to the question of limitation, because despite grant of leave to amend proceedings, the court is duty bound to consider whether the claim is within the prescribed period of limitation, just as the original claim. Therefore, we find no substance in the submission that the appellant ought to have challenged the order of amendment of the reference to enable it to contend that the claim for enhanced compensation is barred by limitation. Since the amendment of the reference for claiming enhanced compensation for the trees and the well situate on the land does not relate back to the date of filing of the reference, for the purpose of limitation, it must be held that the claim made on 19th September, 1990 is barred by limitation provided under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. Therefore, the first question is answered in the *9 * affirmative. The grant of enhanced compensation for the trees and well to the extent of Rs.3,62,971/-and Rs.1500/-cannot be sustained and is required to be set aside.

8. Coming to the second question, it is contended by the learned AGP that the learned judge has erred in granting separate compensation for the land and fruit-bearing trees thereon by valuing both separately. She submits that the market value of the land is determined on the basis of the yield therefrom. Therefore, there cannot be twice valuation of the trees, once by way of yield therefrom to value the land and again for value of the trees separately. In this regard, she relies upon a decision of the Apex Court in the case of State of Haryana V/s. Gurcharan Singh and Anr. Reported in 1995 Supp (2) Supreme Court Cases page 637. At para-3 of the decision, the Apex Court observes as under :

"3............It is settled law that the Collector or the court who determines the compensation for the land as well as fruit bearing trees cannot determine them separately. The compensation is to the value of the acquired land. The market value is determined on the basis of the yield. Then necessarily applying suitable multiplier, the compensation needs to be awarded. Under no circumstances, the court should allow the compensation on the basis of the nature of the land as well as fruit-bearing trees. In other words, the * 10 * market value of the land is determined twice over, once on the basis of the value of the land and again on the basis of the yield got from the fruit-bearing trees. The definition of land includes the benefits which accrue from the land as defined in Section 3(a) of the Act. After compensation is determined on the basis of the value of the land as distinct from the income applying suitable multiplier, then the trees would be valued only as firewood and necessary compensation would be given. "

9. Applying the above principles to the facts of the present case, grant of additional compensation of Rs.3,62,971/- towards the trees is clearly unjustified and cannot be sustained. Therefore, the second question is also answered in a negative.

10. In the above circumstances, the Appeal is partly allowed. The grant of additional compensation of Rs.3,62,971/-

towards trees and the grant of additional compensation of Rs.1500/- towards well is hereby set aside. It is clarified that the claimants are entitled to compensation for the land, as per the order dated 4th March, 2003 passed by this court in First Appeal No. 104 of 1992. The respondents are also entitled to the compensation awarded by the Special Land Acquisition Officer for the trees on the land and the well. The Special Land Acquisition Officer shall calculate the total * 11 * amount of compensation payable to the respondents in view of both the judgments.

[P.B.MAJMUDAR,J] [SMT.R.P.SONDURBALDOTA,J] * 12 *