JUDGMENT R.M. CHHAYA, J. 1. By way of this appeal filed under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (the Act) read with Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (the CPC) the appellant acquiring body has challenged judgment and award dated 12.12.2005 passed under Section 35(3) of the Act by Additional Senior Civil Judge, Gandhinagar in Land Acquisition Reference No. 781 of 1998. 2. The State had acquired the land belonging to the private respondent original claimant under Section 35 of the Act. It appears from the record that by order dated 28.04.1994 passed under Section 35(2) of the Act the Special Land Acquisition Officer determined and awarded rental compensation @ Rs. 1.85 sq. mtr. Being aggrieved by the same, the claimant preferred references before the Reference Court claiming Rs. 10 sq. mtr. per year. The Reference Court by the impugned judgment and award passed under Section 35(3) of the Act partly allowed the land references and ordered to pay additional amount of rental compensation at Rs. 5.65 sq. mtr. per year, over and above that the Reference Court awarded interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of taking possession of the lands on additional rental amount till realization and further ordered the appellant to go on paying the increased rate of rent as per the impugned judgment and award. 3. Heard Mr. Ajay R. Mehta with Mr. Siddharth Dave, learned Counsel for the appellant, Mr. A.J. Patel with Mr. Jayesh Patel, learned Counsel for the respondent original claimant, and Mr. Alkesh N. Shah, learned Assistant Government Pleader for respondent No. 2 Special Land Acquisition Officer. 4. Learned Counsel for the appellant has submitted that the Reference Court has erred in awarding the rental compensation beyond the period of three years. It was submitted that the award passed by the Reference Court is beyond the scope and ambit of Section 35(3) of the Act as no rental compensation can be awarded for a period of more than three years. Relying upon the judgment rendered by Division Bench of this Court in the case of the Deputy General Manager vs. Patel Anil Bachubhai & Another, 2008 (2) G.L.H. 767 , it was submitted that the Collector as well as the Reference Court have no jurisdiction to determine and decide the rental compensation beyond the period of three years from the date of taking possession. It was therefore contended that the Reference Court has overlooked this vital aspect and has fixed the rental compensation based upon the previous award and has passed the impugned judgment and award directing to go on paying the rent even beyond the period of three years. It was further submitted that the appellant is ready and willing to pay the rental compensation as fixed by the Reference Court along with interest @ 9% p.a. as held by the Reference Court for the period of three years from the date of taking over possession. 5. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for the respondent Special Land Acquisition Officer has also adopted the arguments made by the learned Counsel for the appellant. 6. Per contra learned Counsel for the original claimant has supported the judgment and has submitted that as the possession is not restored the Reference Court has rightly awarded the references. No other or further submissions are made by learned Counsel for the parties. 7. At the outset it may be noted that Division Bench of this Court in the case of Deputy General Manager (supra) has clearly held that the Reference Court and/or the Land Acquisition Officer has no jurisdiction beyond the period of three years and has held thus: “27. From the aforesaid provisions, it appears that only that Court can pass a decree for mesne profits which has jurisdiction to pass a decree for possession and in case where decree for possession is prayed. In the present case proceedings before the Reference Court is reference under sub-section (3) of Section 35 of the Act for determining dispute as to sufficiency of the compensation only. It is not a suit and/or proceedings for recovery or possession. The Reference Court has no jurisdiction to pass an order for restoring possession in the reference under subsection (3) of Section 35 of the Act. Therefore, reliance placed upon Section 2(12) as well as Order XX, Rule 12 of the CPC and Sections 53 and 54 of the Land Acquisition Act on behalf of the claimants are misplaced. Therefore, submission on behalf of the claimants that amount of compensation determined by the Reference Court beyond period of three years be treated as mesne profit cannot be accepted. Such a finding would be without jurisdiction. Therefore, submission on behalf of the claimants that amount of compensation determined by the Reference Court beyond period of three years be treated as mesne profit cannot be accepted. Such a finding would be without jurisdiction. Similarly, even the dispute whether the occupation and possession of the ONGC beyond period of three years would be illegal or not and/or whether they can be said to be unauthorized or illegal possession beyond period of three years, such dispute also cannot be decided by the Reference Court in a reference under Section 35(3) of the Act and this Court in an appeal under Section 54 of the Act. All these questions are required to be decided and considered in an appropriate proceedings only on leading proper evidence. It is the contention on behalf of the ONGC that claimants have been paid periodical rise in compensation/rental every three years and same has been accepted by the claimants without any objection and raising any dispute, therefore, it can be said that there is implied extension of contract/agreement. On the other hand it is the contention on the claimants that merely because the claimants have accepted rental there cannot be implied extension of contract/agreement. Such dispute is also not within the jurisdiction of the Reference Court. Whether there is implied extension of agreement/contract or not can be decided only on leading evidence in an appropriate proceedings but certainly such dispute cannot be decided by the Reference Court in the reference under Section 35(3) of the Act and even by this Court in an appeal under Section 54 of the Act. Even on plain reading of definition of Section 2(12) of the Act, it is clear that wrongful possession is very essential for mesne profits. Therefore, unless on facts and on leading proper evidence, it is held that ONGC is in wrongful possession of the lands in question, there is no question of awarding any mesne profits. Therefore, the contention and submission on behalf of the claimants that the amount awarded by the Reference Court beyond period of three years be treated as mesne profits cannot be accepted as the same would be without jurisdiction and even beyond the scope of the reference.” 8. Therefore, the contention and submission on behalf of the claimants that the amount awarded by the Reference Court beyond period of three years be treated as mesne profits cannot be accepted as the same would be without jurisdiction and even beyond the scope of the reference.” 8. It appears from the impugned judgment and award that the Reference Court was aware about the same still, however, relying upon the earlier award, which is not challenged by the appellant, has passed the impugned judgment and award. 9. In view of the binding decision of Division Bench of this Court in the case of Deputy General Manager (supra) it appears that the Reference Court has erred in awarding the rental compensation beyond the period of three years as envisaged under Section 35 of the Act. In view of the aforesaid facts, the appeal deserves to be allowed only on this short ground. The other aspects, which are considered by the Reference Court and are not raised by either parties before this Court and hence the same are not gone into by this Court in detail. 10. In view of the aforesaid therefore the appeal is partly allowed. The impugned judgment and award stands modified to the extent that the respondent original claimant shall be entitled to the additional rental compensation @ Rs. 5.65 sq. mtr. for the period of three years from the date of taking over possession along with interest @ 9% p.a. on additional amount and for lesser period if possession has already been restored before the years. 11. It may be noted that only the aspect of awarding rental compensation beyond the period of three years is raised and has been considered by this Court and hence, this judgment shall not be treated as precedent. 12. Parties to bear their own costs.