JUDGMENT Gopala Gowda, J. This Appeal is filed by the beneficiary-Karnataka University and the cross-objection is filed by the owners of the acquired lands questioning the correctness of the judgment and award dated 6/9/2006 passed in LAC No.41/2004 by the II Addl.Civil Judge(Sr.Dn.) Dharwar (hereinafter in short called as ‘Reference Court’) fixing the market value at Rs. 33,000/- per acre for the acquired lands with all other statutory benefits under the Land Acquisition Act (in short L.A. Act). While the appellant states that the market value fixed by the reference Court is on the higher side and seeks to set aside the judgment and award of the reference Court, the cross-objectors in their cross-objections have prayed for dismissal of the appeal and claimed interest at 9% per annum for one year from the date of preliminary notification dated 18/3/1971 and thereafter at 15% till payment of compensation as provided under Section 34 of the L.A Act. 2. There is a delay of 54 days in filing the appeal and these matters are heard both on condonation of delay application and also on merits by consent of the learned Counsel for the parties. Keeping in view the rights of the parties and the decision of the Apex Court reported in State of Bihar Vs. Kameshwaraprasad Singh, AIR 2000 SC 2306 and also accepting the explanation offered by the beneficiary we allow IA. 1/2007 and condone the delay in filing this Appeal. The brief facts of the case are stated as follows to appreciate the rival legal contentions urged on merits. (i) An extent of 11 acres 39 guntas of land in Sy.No.121/2 and 6 acres 2 guntas in Sy.No.122/2 of Saptapur village in Dharwad Taluk were acquired by the State Government for Karnataka University. The preliminary notification was dated 18/3/1971, final notification was dated 14/3/1974 and award was passed on 23/9/1986 fixing the market value at Rs.2,600/- per acre. Possession of the acquired lands was taken on 25-9-1995. Curiously, notice under Section 12(2) of the Land Acquisition Act dated 18/11/1987 was not served on the owners after passing the award. (ii) The deceased owner had sought for an order of reference to the reference CCourt by filing an application under Section 18(1) of L.A. Act on 6/2/1988. Since second respondent did not make reference, the deceased owner filed Misc. (ii) The deceased owner had sought for an order of reference to the reference CCourt by filing an application under Section 18(1) of L.A. Act on 6/2/1988. Since second respondent did not make reference, the deceased owner filed Misc. Application No.34/1993 under Section 18(3)( a) before the reference Court requesting it to give direction to him to make an order of reference in exercise of his statutory power. It was allowed on 14/11/2003 after hearing second respondent and directed him to make an order of reference to the reference Court for re-determination of the correct market value of the acquired land. Reference was made and it was registered as LAC No.41/2004. The reference Court after conducting trial passed Judgment and Award by re-determining the market value of the acquired lands. (iii) The deceased owner had filed W.P.No.17 497/1987 seeking a direction to the State Government to drop the acquisition proceedings urging various legal grounds in support of his prayer. On 25/11/1987 this Court granted stay order staying all further proceedings and it was in force till 10/11/1992, when the writ petition was dismissed as withdrawn as it became infructuous. 3. Before the reference Court since a contention was taken by the appellant that the reference application filed before the reference Court was barred by limitation, it has framed Point No.1 on this issue and the same was answered holding that the reference application was within the period of limitation by recording its reasons on proper appreciation of facts and legal evidence on record. 4. Mr. N.B.Bhat, learned Counsel for the beneficiary University had contended that having regard to the averments made in paragraph 4 of the writ petition filed by the deceased owner, it is clear that the deceased first respondent had knowledge of the award dated 23/9/1986 and the reference application filed on 6/2/1988 before second respondent was beyond 90 days prescribed under Section 18(2)(a) of the Land Acquisition (Mysore Extension and Amendment) Act XVII of 1961. He further contended that Misc. He further contended that Misc. Application No.34/1993 filed on 14/11/2003 by the owner seeking a direction to the second respondent to make reference was also beyond 3 years period of limitation prescribed in the statutory provision of Section 18(3) of the Act after filing of application under Section 18(1) of the Act and therefore the order passed by the reference Court directing the second respondent to make reference under Section 18(3) to the reference Court is illegal and bad in law. The learned Counsel further submits that this important aspect of the case is not properly considered by the reference Court by appreciating facts and legal evidence on record properly and therefore he has contended that the order of the reference Court directing second respondent to make an order of reference is not only erroneous but also suffers from error in law. The same is also contrary to the Division Bench decision of this Court reported in ILR 1991 KAR 1109 wherein it is held that if the claimant received award amount on any date or otherwise got knowledge of the award on any date, the limitation runs from that date. This decision has been approved by the Supreme Court in the case of State of Karnataka Vs. Laxman, (2005) 8 SCC 781 at paragraphs 16, 17 and 28. While approving the said decision, the Supreme Court has set aside the majority view of the Full Bench decision of this Court in Hanumappa’s case reported in ILR 1998 KAR 4071 and held that if the application seeking reference by an interested person is not filed within 90 days from the date of knowledge of the award passed and if order of reference is not made within 90 days by the Deputy Commissioner to the jurisdictional reference Court, an application is not filed within three years from the date of filing reference application, the order of reference made by second respondent is barred by limitation under Section 18(3) of the L.A Act. The learned Counsel for the University submits that the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case referred to supra is with all fours applicable to the fact situation and therefore requested this Court to grant the relief as prayed in this Appeal. The learned Counsel for the University submits that the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case referred to supra is with all fours applicable to the fact situation and therefore requested this Court to grant the relief as prayed in this Appeal. The learned Counsel fairly and categorically submitted that the service of award notice under Section 12(2) of the Act upon the owners is neither available in the records nor it was produced before the reference Court by second respondent. Mr. N.B .Bhat also submitted that since the market value determined by the reference Court is on the higher side, it causes great hardship to the University and prayed to set -aside the judgment and Award of the reference Court. 5. Mr. Umakanthan, learned Counsel for the second respondent had submitted that the order of the reference Court dt.14/11/1993 directing to pass an order of reference to the reference Court for re-determination of the market value of the acquired lands is not challenged by him and the direction issued to make an order of reference to the reference Court is accepted and reference was made, therefore the order passed in the Miscellaneous case by the reference Court has become final. The same is within the period of limitation prescribed under Section 18(1 )(3) of the L.A Act. The learned AGA further submitted that the finding supported with reason recorded on the question of limitation by the reference Court on the contentious point is based on proper appreciation of facts and legal evidence on record and therefore on that question he has no submissions to make in this Appeal, his submissions is placed on record. In so far as the findings and reasons recorded by the reference Court regarding re-determination of the market value of the acquired lands are concerned, the award passed by the reference Court in respect of other similar lands covered in Ex.P- 2 is affirmed by this Court and the same has become final. He contends that the market value determined by the reference Court is on the higher side. He has adopted the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the beneficiary University on merits and prayed to set aside the judgment and Award of the reference Court. 6. Mr. He contends that the market value determined by the reference Court is on the higher side. He has adopted the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the beneficiary University on merits and prayed to set aside the judgment and Award of the reference Court. 6. Mr. S.K.Venkata Reddy, learned Counsel for the cross-objectors/owners has strongly rebutted the aforementioned submissions of both the learned Counsel on behalf of the appellant and L.A.O. He has contended that undisputedly Award notice under Section 12(2) of L.A Act is not served on the owners. He further submitted that in paragraph 4 of the writ petition filed by deceased first respondent owner, he had the knowledge of passing of award by second respondent is stated only after the certified copy of the same was received by him on 11/11/1987. Thereafter, on 6/2/1988 an application under Section 18( 1) of the L.A Act was filed before the second respondent seeking an order of reference to be made to the reference Court for re-determination of the market value of the acquired lands as the compensation amount awarded was not acceptable to him. After the writ petition was withdrawn by him on 10/11/1992, within three years as provided under Article 139 of Limitation Act of 1961 (sic 1963) the application under Section 18(3) of the Act was filed before the reference Court seeking direction to the L.A.O to pass an order of reference. Alternatively, he has submitted that the time spent in the legal proceedings viz., the Writ Petition filed by the deceased first respondent from 6/2/1988 to 10/11/1992 has to be excluded for computation of the period of limitation to refer the matter by L.A.O to the reference Court as stipulated under Section 18(3) of the L.A Act. The same is permissible under Section 3 of Limitation Act. It is further contended by him that though the beneficiary the appellant was not the party in the proceedings, the 2nd respondent was a party and he did not take a plea’ that the miscellaneous petition by the deceased first respondent was barred by limitation. The order of reference was made by the L.A.O by obeying the direction issued by the reference Court to him. The beneficiary filed objections in the reference case and the plea regarding limitation was taken by it. The order of reference was made by the L.A.O by obeying the direction issued by the reference Court to him. The beneficiary filed objections in the reference case and the plea regarding limitation was taken by it. In the absence of award notice to be, served upon the deceased owner or cross-objectors as required under Section 12(2) of the L.A Act, the date of knowledge of the contents of the award can be taken only from the date of obtaining the certified copy of the award, as held by the Supreme Court in Braham Prakash Vs. Manbir Singh, AIR 1963 SC 1604 , wherein at paragraph 5 it is held as hereunder: “5. xxx Now, knowledge of the award does not mean a mere knowledge of the fact that an award has been made. The knowledge must relate to the essential contents of the award. These contents may be known either actually or constructively. If the award is communicated to a party under S.12(2) of the Act, the party must be obviously fixed with knowledge of the contents of the award whether he reads it or not. Similarly when a party is present in Court either personally or through his representative when the award is made by the Collector, it must be presumed that he knows the contents of the award. Having regard to the scheme of the Act we think that knowledge of the award must mean knowledge of the essential contents of the award…” The period of limitation starts from the date of knowledge of contents of the Award to the deceased first respondent. The reference Court rightly framed the contentious point on the question of limitation in view of plea taken by the beneficiary and answered the same on appreciation of facts, legal evidence on record and applying the ratio laid down by the Apex Court in the case referred to supra in favour of the cross-objectors and against the beneficiary-University. The same is neither erroneous or error in law. Therefore, the Counsel for the cross-objectors submits that the findings and reasons recorded on the question of limitation does not warrant interference in this Appeal. 7. The same is neither erroneous or error in law. Therefore, the Counsel for the cross-objectors submits that the findings and reasons recorded on the question of limitation does not warrant interference in this Appeal. 7. On merits, with regard to point No.3 pertaining to re-determination of the market value of the acquired lands by the reference Court, the learned Counsel for the owners has submitted that the reference Court has simply followed the judgments Exs.P-2 and p- 3 passed in respect of similar lands to fix the market value of the lands acquired in this case. The same cannot be found fault with, as the said judgments became final. Hence, the appeal of the beneficiary is devoid of merit and requested this Court to dismiss the appeal. 8. The learned Counsel for the beneficiary and AGA on behalf of second respondent have fairly submitted that the cross-objectors are not entitled to interest on the compensation awarded by the reference Court during the period of stay order in the Writ Petition filed by the deceased owner. The submission of the learned Counsel is placed on record. 9. Learned Counsel for the cross-objectors has relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court reported in Chandra Banse Singh Vs. Jawahar Lal Mehta, AIR 1984 SC 1767 . In that case there was delay of two years between the preliminary notification and taking over possession, the Supreme Court has ordered for payment of equitable compensation to the owners in the form of interest at 7-1/2% per annum on the value of the land. In another decision reported in Ashok Kumar Vs State of Uttar Pradesh, 2005 (1) LA & CC 354, since the land was taken-over by the State Government without following due process of law, the Court imposed exemplary cost ofRs.One lakh and directed restoration of the land to the owner. In yet another decision reported in Smt. Lila Ghosh Vs. State of West Bengal, 2004 (1) LACC 158, it is held by the Calcutta High Court that payment of interest to the owner under Section 34 of the L.A Act will arise only if the compensation is not paid or deposited before taking possession of the acquired land from the owner. The learned Counsel also relied upon the decision of this Court reported in Patel Byrappa Vs. The learned Counsel also relied upon the decision of this Court reported in Patel Byrappa Vs. State of Karnataka, 1989 (1) KLJ 375, wherein it is held that owners of the acquired land should not suffer on account of delay in communicating the date of award or delay in passing the award by the Deputy Commissioner. The xerox copy of the letter dated, 10/12/1991 issued by the Revenue Department is produced clarifying that in the absence of materials regarding actual date of taking over possession of acquired lands, interest will have to be awarded from the date of award. The learned Counsel for the cross-objectors submitted that it is a fit case for this Court to award interest as prayed for or in the alternative to impose exemplary costs. 10. On the basis of the rival legal contentions urged on behalf of the parties, the following points would arise for our consideration and determination: i) Whether the application filed under Section 18(3 )(a) of the Act by the owners was barred by limitation? ii) Whether due to non-impleading of the beneficiary before the reference Court seeking a direction to 2nd respondent to make an order of reference to the reference Court is a nullity in the eye of law.? iii) Whether the findings and reasons recorded on the contentious point of limitation in making order of reference by the second respondent is legal and valid? iv) Whether the findings and reasons recorded on the contentious point in re-determining the market value of the acquired land on the basis of Exs.P-1 and 2, are correct? ‘ v) Whether the cross-objectors are entitled to interest from the date of preliminary notification or in the alternative for exemplary costs? 11. All the above points have to be answered against the beneficiary and in favour of the owners for the following reasons: It is an undisputed fact that Award notice under Section 12(2) of the L.AAct was not served upon the owners. Strong reliance is placed upon the endorsement made on the office copy of the notice of L.A.O “refused” regarding date of service of the said notice. The said endorsement is without any material basis and the same cannot be taken into consideration by this Court. The reason is, the said notice was not produced before the reference Court or this Court: Mr. The said endorsement is without any material basis and the same cannot be taken into consideration by this Court. The reason is, the said notice was not produced before the reference Court or this Court: Mr. N.B.Bhat learned Counsel has fairly submitted that the Copy of the notice is not available in the file of the second respondent. In the absence of the same, the averments made at paragraph 4 of the writ petition filed by the deceased owner regarding knowledge of award passed by L.A.O shall be taken as the date on which the certified copy of the award was obtained by him from the second respondent. That is the relevant date to be taken into consideration to start limitation as provided under Section 18(2)( a) of the L.A Act for filing an application before the Deputy Commissioner or any other officer appointed by the State Government for the purpose of passing an Award seeking an order of reference to the reference Court. It is specifically stated by the deceased owner in the writ petition referred to supra filed before this Court that he had no knowledge of the award till 30-6-1987. In this regard, no rebuttal evidence is adduced on behalf of the beneficiary University that the owner had the prior knowledge of the award passed, by second respondent. 12. The reference Court has rightly relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court reported in AIR 1963 SC 1604 paragraph 5 to record its findings on the question of limitation regarding the order of reference] made to the reference Court by the second respondent. The legal position laid down in that case is rightly applied to the undisputed facts of this case. Without prejudice to the filing of the writ petition the application under Section 18(1) of the L.AAct was filed by the deceased owner on 6/2/1988. On 25/11/1987 as per EX.R -10, stay of acquisition proceedings was obtained by the deceased owner. The same was in force till 10/11/1992 the date on which the writ petition was dismissed as withdrawn as per Ex.R-12. Undoubtedly, application under Section 18(1) of the L.A Act was filed by the deceased owner within 90 days as provided under Section 18(2) of the Act from the date of service of the award notice upon the deceased owner. The same was in force till 10/11/1992 the date on which the writ petition was dismissed as withdrawn as per Ex.R-12. Undoubtedly, application under Section 18(1) of the L.A Act was filed by the deceased owner within 90 days as provided under Section 18(2) of the Act from the date of service of the award notice upon the deceased owner. Since reference was not made by the second respondent, an application under Section 18(3)(a) was filed before the reference Court on 18/3/1993 with a prayer to direct the L.A.O for making an order of reference as the compensation awarded by him was not acceptable to him. It was the duty of the Court Under Section 3 of the Limitation Act to examine whether the said application filed by the deceased owner was within the time stipulated under Article 137 of Limitation Act keeping in view Exs.R-10 and 12, the stay order and date of withdrawal of the writ petition. If the period of stay order granted in the Writ Petition is excluded as provided under Section 12 of the Limitation Act, the application filed under Section 18(3)(a) of the Act by the deceased owner before the reference Court which was registered as Misc. No.34/93 was well within the time prescribed in the above statutory power of the Act. 13. The aforementioned facts have to be examined by this Court with reference to the cross-examination of PW-1 by the learned Counsel for the University. No cross-examination was done to the said witness on these aspects. Therefore, the decision of Division Bench of this Court relied upon by the learned Counsel for the beneficiary, which is referred to in Laxman’s case, is not applicable to the fact situation. The period of limitation is protected by Sections 3, 12 and Artic1e 137 of Limitation Act. Therefore, the reliance placed by the reference Court on the decision reported in AIR 1963 SC 1604 paragraph 5 to record its finding on the question of limitation is perfectly justified and the ratio of the above referred decision of the Apex Court squarely applies to the fact situation of this case. Therefore, we do not find any ground to interfere with the findings and reasons recorded by the reference Court on the question of limitation. That apart, learned Adl. Govt. Advocate has fairly submitted that the order dated 14/11/2003 in the Miscellaneous Petition is not questioned. Therefore, we do not find any ground to interfere with the findings and reasons recorded by the reference Court on the question of limitation. That apart, learned Adl. Govt. Advocate has fairly submitted that the order dated 14/11/2003 in the Miscellaneous Petition is not questioned. The same has been accepted by the appellant and second respondent and reference was made to the Reference Court by him accepting the above order. The appellant and L.A.O participated in the proceeding and the Court has recorded the finding of fact on the contentious point of limitation answering the same in the affirmative by recording valid and cogent reasons. The learned Counsel for the beneficiary is unable to show to this Court that the same are erroneous in law and therefore the challenge made to the finding on the contentious point is liable to be rejected as wholly untenable in law. 14. The non- impleading of the beneficiary in the Miscellaneous proceedings before the reference Court has not caused any prejudice to the University as the reference Court has framed the contentious point regarding the period of limitation for its consideration. The reference Court satisfied with the pleadings, applied its mind, carefully, examining the aforementioned provisions of the Limitation Act in the light of the application filed under Section 18(1) of the Act by the owner on 6/2/1988, interim stay order passed by this Court in the writ petition as per Ex.R-1 0 was continued till the withdrawal of the writ Petition on 10/11/1992 and recorded its finding in the affirmative in favour of the owners. The period spent in the Writ Petition proceedings is excluded as provided under Section 12 of the Limitation Act, for which the owners are entitled to under Section 3. The Reference Court on proper appreciation of undisputed facts, provisions of the L.AAct and legal evidence on record has held that the application filed by the deceased owner seeking for issuance of a direction to the L.A. 0 under Section 18(3)( a) of the Act and the order passed in the Miscellaneous Petition directing the L.A.O to make an order of reference to the reference Court on the application tiled by the deceased first respondent under Sec, 18( 1) of the L.AAct is legal and valid and the said order is accepted by the L.A.O as well within time is the finding recorded by the reference Court. 15. 15. After the direction was issued by the reference Court to the 2nd respondent vide order dt.25/5/2005, he has referred the matter to the reference Court for re-determination of the market value of the, lands as requested by the owners. Statement of objections was filed by the beneficiary in the reference proceedings, the rights of the parties was not determined in the miscellaneous proceedings. Therefore, non-impleadment of the beneficiary in the miscellaneous proceedings does not render the direction of the reference Court to the L.A.O is a nullity in the eye of law is the contention urged by the learned Counsel for the appellant, therefore the said contention urged is wholly untenable and same is rejected. The right of the beneficiary is availed before the reference Court by urging the plea regarding limitation, the parties adduced evidence on this aspect of the case and the finding recorded by the reference Court is accepted by us, therefore it cannot be contended on behalf of the appellant that its rights are prejudiced, this contention also is not tenable in law and same is rejected as wholly untenable in law. 16. The only other question to be considered is Point No.3 regarding the correctness of the market value determined by the reference Court. In respect of the adjoining land acquired which was the subject matter for re-determination of market value in LAC 569/88,j the market value of that land was fixed at Rs.3 3 ,000/- per acre by the reference Court and the same has been confirmed by this Court in MFA No.5148/1998. The award copy in the aforementioned LAC case was produced as EX.P-l and on the basis of that judgment the market value of the acquired lands was fixed by the reference Court, the reference Court was justified in doing so. It is quite un-understandable as to why the University contends that it is on higher side and causes hardship to it when the same market value is fixed for the similar adjacent lands to the lands acquired in this Appeal. The valuable right of the owners upon the land is lost for the benefit of the University. Instead of paying the just and reasonable market value of the acquired lands determined by the reference Court, the University has altogether taken a different stand in so far as the lands in question which attitude of it is not correct. The valuable right of the owners upon the land is lost for the benefit of the University. Instead of paying the just and reasonable market value of the acquired lands determined by the reference Court, the University has altogether taken a different stand in so far as the lands in question which attitude of it is not correct. It is not expected from the University to take such a untenable stand in view of the Constitutional right guaranteed to the owner of the land under Article 300-A of the Constitution of India. Such a right is interpreted by the Supreme Court as “human right” in the case reported in 2007(8) SCC 704. Having regard to the fundamental right guaranteed under Articles 19(1 )(g) and 21 of the Constitution of India, right of occupation carried on with agricultural operation for themselves are the rights to have a meaningful livelihood. The University, which is imparting education to thousands of students should be the protector of human rights of the citizens, instead it has taken untenable stand contending that the market price fixed causes hardship to it, which attitude of it shocks the conscience of this Court. The owners have been waiting to receive just and fair compensation since 1971, like Shabari waiting. for Sri Rama’s feet touch to liberate her from the curse. Even after a lapse of 37 years after acquisition of the lands, the University is reluctant to pay the fair and reasonable market value to the owners determined by the Court urging all kinds of untenable and frivolous grounds in this Appeal which is most unfortunate on the part of the beneficiary University. 17. Interest payable on the compensation to the owners is a statutory benefit and the same cannot be denied to them. But the owners are not entitled to interest throughout as claimed in the cross-objection as interest cannot be paid from the date of stay order obtained in the Writ Petition to the date of disposal of the petition(25/11/1987 to 10/11/1992). That apart eventhough the Prl. Notification Was of the year 1971 and Final Notification was in 1974, possession was taken on 25/09/1995. That apart eventhough the Prl. Notification Was of the year 1971 and Final Notification was in 1974, possession was taken on 25/09/1995. From that date the owners are entitled to interest at 9% p.a for one year from the date of taking over Possession and thereafter at 15%.per annum as provided under Sections 28 and 34 of the L.A Act till payment of enhanced compensation determined by the reference Court. 18. Even after dismissal of the writ petition, neither the award amount is deposited nor the compensation determined by the reference Court is paid to the owners despite lapse of 37 years from the date of initiation of the acquisition proceedings. These are all relevant aspects which weighed in the mind of this Court to impose costs to give a message to the University and the Government not to take this kind of hyper-technical pleas atleast in future to deprive the constitutional and statutory rights of the farmers whose lands are acquired for public purpose. Accordingly, we answer this point partly in favour of the owners. 19. In the result, the appeal is dismissed and the cross-objection is partly allowed to the extent indicated above. We impose cost of Rs.25,000/- payable by the University which shall be included in the modified award. The award shall be modified accordingly.