https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=287237 An application to the Civil Court seeking a direction to the Deputy Commissioner to make a reference under Section 18(3)(b) of the Land Acquisition Act was held to fall under the residuary Article 137 of the Limitation Act, 1963 because no specific limitation period was prescribed. The right to approach the Civil Court arose when the Deputy Commissioner failed to make the reference within the ninety days allowed under the amended scheme, and limitation ran from expiry of that period. As the application was filed more than three years after that date, it was barred by limitation and could not be entertained. en-us Tue, 08 Feb 1994 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 04 Apr 2020 14:22:44 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=287237 An application to the Civil Court seeking a direction to the Deputy Commissioner to make a reference under Section 18(3)(b) of the Land Acquisition Act was held to fall under the residuary Article 137 of the Limitation Act, 1963 because no specific limitation period was prescribed. The right to approach the Civil Court arose when the Deputy Commissioner failed to make the reference within the ninety days allowed under the amended scheme, and limitation ran from expiry of that period. As the application was filed more than three years after that date, it was barred by limitation and could not be entertained. Case-Laws Indian Laws Tue, 08 Feb 1994 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=287237