Judgment J.C. Upadhyaya, J.—The challenge in these two appeals is to the common judgment and award dated 4.8.1999 rendered by learned Asst.Judge, Mehsana in Land Reference Case Nos. 1795 and 1796 of 1993. 2. Certain agricultural lands belonging to the respondent – claimant situated in the outskirts of village Khambhel, Tal. Chanasma, Distt. Mehsana, came to be temporarily acquired by the appellant – ONGC Ltd. The Special Land Acquisition Officer by his award dated 27.12.1991 assessed the rent of the temporarily acquired lands at the rate of 80 ps.per sq.mtr. The respondent – claimant felt that the amount offered by way of rent was quite inadequate and insufficient and, therefore, applied for references under Section 35(3) of the Land Acquisition Act (‘the Act’, for short). The reference Court after considering the oral and documentary evidence on record, came to the conclusion that the rent offered to the respondent – claimant was quite inadequate and insufficient and, therefore, awarded compensation by fixing the rent @ Rs. 2.70 ps.per sq.mtr. Thus, the additional amount of rent was awarded @ Rs. 1.90 ps.per sq.mtr. The reference Court also granted interest as contemplated under Section 28 of the Act and ordered that the respondent – claimant was entitled to interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of taking possession till one year and, thereafter, @ 15% p.a. till the realisation of the amount from the date of the award or from the date of taking possession, whichever was earlier in time. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and award rendered by the reference Court, the original opponent No. 2 – General Manager, ONGC Ltd., Mehsana preferred these appeals. 3. Mr. VM Vyas, ld. Advocate for Mr. RH Mehta, ld. Advocate for the appellant – ONGC Ltd. submitted that the impugned judgment and award is contrary to law and facts on record. It is submitted that the bare perusal of the impugned judgment and award would reveal that the reference Court conducted the case, as if it pertained to permanent acquisition. That in the instant case, the provisions contained under Section 35 of the Act are attracted, as admittedly in the instant case, the acquisition was temporary acquisition. 3.1 Mr. Vyas, ld. Advocate mainly relied upon the case of Oil & Natural Gas Corporation Ltd. vs. Shankarji Hemaji & Anr. reported in 2008 (2) GLR 1226 . Mr. That in the instant case, the provisions contained under Section 35 of the Act are attracted, as admittedly in the instant case, the acquisition was temporary acquisition. 3.1 Mr. Vyas, ld. Advocate mainly relied upon the case of Oil & Natural Gas Corporation Ltd. vs. Shankarji Hemaji & Anr. reported in 2008 (2) GLR 1226 . Mr. Vyas, relying upon the aforesaid decision stated that, in the instant case, almost identical is the situation, as in the instant case, the reference Court evaluated the evidence on record, as if there was a permanent acquisition of land and as if the reference Court was called upon to fix the market value of the land. It is submitted that in the instant case, the reference Court granted statutory additions, namely, interest as contemplated under Section 28 of the Act, as if this is permanent acquisition. It is submitted that though the reference applications were filed in time and, therefore, it is not the submission on behalf of the appellant – ONGC Ltd. that the reference applications deserved dismissal on the ground that they were time barred, but in the instant case, considering the approach of the reference Court, namely, deciding this reference cases, as if the acquisition was permanent in nature, would clearly reveal that the impugned judgment and award rendered by the reference Court deserves to be set-aside and both the reference cases are required to be remanded to the reference Court for retrial. It is submitted that the reference Court has no jurisdiction to decide any other question except the difference as to sufficiency of the compensation in a reference under Section 35(3) of the Act. It is, therefore, submitted that the appeals may be allowed. 4. Ms. Shachi Mathur, ld. AGP appearing for Respondent No. 1 – Special Land Acquisition Officer, in her submission adopted the arguments advanced on behalf of the appellant – ONGC Ltd. and submitted that both the reference cases deserve to be remanded to the reference Court in light of the observations made by this Court in the case of ONGC Ltd. vs. Sankarji Hemaji & Anr. (Supra). 5. None appeared for Respondent No. 2 – original claimant, though served. 6. I have examined the record and proceedings in context with the submissions made on behalf of the rival side. 7. (Supra). 5. None appeared for Respondent No. 2 – original claimant, though served. 6. I have examined the record and proceedings in context with the submissions made on behalf of the rival side. 7. The impugned judgment and award rendered by the reference Court is mainly assailed on behalf of the appellant – ONGC Ltd. on the ground that the reference Court examined the evidence adduced before it as well as relied upon certain decisions, as if in the instant case there was permanent acquisition of the lands. There is no dispute that in the instant case, the question was fixation of just and sufficient amount of rent regarding temporary acquisition of lands belonging to the Respondent No. 2 – original claimant. There is no dispute that though in the instant case, the reference applications were filed within time and, therefore, the question of limitation shall not arise in the instant case. As stated above, what was found objectionable to the appellant – ONGC Ltd. was that in the instant case, the mode and method of appreciation of evidence adopted by the reference Court was as if there was permanent acquisition of land. As a matter of fact, in the instant case, the reference Court should have decided both these references keeping in focus only the provisions contained under Section 35 of the Act. 8. In the case of ONGC Ltd. vs. Sankarji Hemaji & Anr. (Supra), to some extent, identical situation was there in the said case, as prevailed in the instant case. This Court examining the relevant provisions contained in the Act regarding fixation of rent in the case of temporary acquisition, in Paragraph 42 observed as under; i. The reference applications submitted by the original claimants were not maintainable. ii. The reference applications were required to be dismissed on the ground of limitation considering Article 137 of the Limitation Act. In the alternate, the same were required to be dismissed on the ground of delay and laches. iii. The reference court has no power, authority, competence and/or jurisdiction to decide the dispute de-hors the reference made to him. iv. The reference court has no jurisdiction to decide any other question except the difference as to sufficiency of compensation in a reference under Section 35(3) of the Act. iii. The reference court has no power, authority, competence and/or jurisdiction to decide the dispute de-hors the reference made to him. iv. The reference court has no jurisdiction to decide any other question except the difference as to sufficiency of compensation in a reference under Section 35(3) of the Act. v. The reference court has no jurisdiction to declare acquisition proceedings and the award declared by the Special Land Acquisition Officer under Section 35(3) of the Act as illegal and/or non-est in a reference under Section 35(3) of the Act. vi. The reference court has no jurisdiction to declare possession of the acquiring body as illegal and/or unauthorised and consequently the reference court has no jurisdiction to declare the ONGC – acquiring body as trespasser that too without framing any issue. vii. The reference court has no jurisdiction to award compensation by way of mesne profit declaring compensation of the acquiring body as illegal and unauthorised. viii. The reference court has also no jurisdiction to award statutory benefits and/or interest, as awarded by the reference court, as if the acquisition proceedings is a permanent acquisition. ix. The reference court has no jurisdiction to determine the dispute with regard to sufficiency of the compensation beyond the period of three years from the date of tasking the possession. x. The Reference Court has no jurisdiction to restore the possession of the land to the original owners while deciding the reference under Section 35(3) of the Act. 8.1 Thus, considering the ratio laid down in the above-referred decision, it is clear that the reference Court has no power, authority, competence and/or jurisdiction to decide the dispute de hors the reference made to it or to decide any other question except the difference as to sufficiency of compensation in a reference under Section 35(3) of the Act. It further transpires that in the impugned judgment rendered by the reference Court, if Paragraph 16 is taken into consideration, the reference Court observed that the amount compensable for the requisitioning shall consist of a recurring payment in respect of the period of requisition of a sum equal to the rent which would have been payable for the use and occupation of the property. The reference Court, therefore, took into consideration the factors which are relied upon for the purpose of fixation of mesne profit. The reference Court, therefore, took into consideration the factors which are relied upon for the purpose of fixation of mesne profit. The reference Court also took into consideration the factor, namely, damages caused to the property. In the aforesaid decision of this Court, this Court has categorically observed that the reference Court has no jurisdiction to award compensation by way of mesne profit. Moreover, as stated above, in the instant case, the reference Court also awarded statutory additions. This Court in the above referred decision clearly established that the reference Court has no jurisdiction to award statutory benefit and/or interest as awarded by the reference Court, as if the acquisition proceeding is a permanent acquisition. It is further pertinent to note that as provided under Section 35(3) of the Act as well as, as observed by this Court, in the above-referred decision, the reference Court has no jurisdiction to determine the dispute with regard to sufficiency of the compensation beyond the period of three years from the date of taking the possession. 9. Keeping in mind the above discussions, this Court is of the opinion that the impugned judgment and award rendered by the reference Court deserves to be set-aside and the matter is required to be remanded to the reference Court to decide both the land reference cases in accordance with law and in accordance with the guidelines issued by this Court in the above-referred decision. It is hereby made clear that since both the reference cases are required to be remanded, no merits are examined by this Court and whatever discussion made by this Court in this judgment was only confined to the ratio laid down by this Court in the above-referred decision. In the result, the reference Court shall be at liberty to decide both these reference cases in accordance with law. If both the parties desire to adduce any additional evidence, they shall be permitted to do so. 10. For the foregoing reasons, both these appeals are allowed and the impugned judgment and award dated 4.8.1999 rendered by the learned Asst. Judge, Mehsana in land reference case Nos. 1795 and 1796 of 1993 is hereby quashed and set-aside. If both the parties desire to adduce any additional evidence, they shall be permitted to do so. 10. For the foregoing reasons, both these appeals are allowed and the impugned judgment and award dated 4.8.1999 rendered by the learned Asst. Judge, Mehsana in land reference case Nos. 1795 and 1796 of 1993 is hereby quashed and set-aside. Both the reference cases are remanded to the reference Court for retrial and the reference Court shall decide both these reference cases in accordance with law and in accordance with the guidelines issued by this Court in the case of Oil & Natural Gas Corporation Ltd. vs. Shankarji Hemaji & Anr. reported in 2008 (2) GLR 1226 . There shall be no order as to costs. The amount deposited by the appellant – ONGC Ltd. before the reference Court in view of the interim orders passed by this Court and which has been invested by the reference Court in the fixed deposit shall continue to remain in fixed deposit till the final outcome of both these land reference cases. P P P P P