IMPORTANT POINT
Section 5 of Limitation Act, 1963 cannot be applied for extension of the period of Limitation prescribed under Section 18(2) Proviso of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 for making an application under Section 18(1) for reference to Court against Collector s award.

JUDGMENT

K. Ramaswamy, J.-Leave granted.

2. A short but an important question of law arises for decision in these appeals. By a notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (1 of 1894) (for short, the "Act") published in the State Gazette on February 20, 1984, Government acquired the land for public purpose. The Land Acquisition Officer (for short, the "LAO") made his award under Section 11 on February 28, 1989. The respondents were present at the time when the award was announced. On June 10, 1989 they applied for reference under Section 18. After giving an opportunity of hearing, by order dated January 9, 1990 the LAO rejected the application for reference on the ground that it was barred by limitation, i.e., beyond six weeks from the date of the award. In writ petitions the High Court of Gujarat in the impugned order dated March 13, 1992 in Special Civil Application No., 2296/90 and batch held that Section 5 of the Limitation Act applies to the proceedings before the Collector and that, therefore, reasons given to condone the delay for filing the application were valid. The reasons were that they had applied for certified copy of the award and after its supply and in consultation with the counsel, the reference application came to be filed. Accordingly, High Court condoned the delay and directed the LAO to make the reference. These appeals thus are filed against the said order.

3. Section 18(1) envisages that any interested person who has not accepted the award may, by application in writing to the Collector, require him to refer the dispute raised in the application for the determination of the court. Under sub-section (2), the grounds on which objection to the award is taken have to be stated in the application. However, under the proviso to sub-section (2) 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 Collector s 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 Collector s award, whichever period shall first expire. It would thus be clear that if the interested person was present at the time the Collector made the award, he should make the application within six weeks from the date of the award of the Collector. In other cases, it should be made within six weeks after the receipt of the notice from the Collector/LAO under Section 12(2) or within six months from the date of the Collector s award, whichever period shall first expire. Admittedly, the application for reference is beyond six weeks under clause (a) of proviso to subsection (2) of Section 18.

4. The question, therefore, is : whether Section 5 of the Limitation Act would apply? The High Court relied upon sub-section (3) of Section 18 which was made by way of a local amendment, i.e., Land Acquisition (Maharashtra Extension and Amendment) Act XXXVIII of 1964 which reads thus:

"Any order made by the Collector on an application under this Section shall be subject to revision by the High Court, as if the Collector were a Court subordinate to the High Court within the meaning of Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908."

5. It would appear that the High Court of Gujarat has taken consistent view that, by operation of sub-section (3), as the Collector was designated to be a court subordinate to the High Court under Section 115, Civil Procedure Code (for short, "CPC")., Section 5 of the Limitation Act (26 of 1963) stands attracted. Though sub-section (3) of Section 18, by virtue of local amendments, treated the Collector as court for a limited purpose of exercising revisional jurisdiction under Section 115, CPC to correct errors of orders passed by the Collector under Section 18. He cannot be considered to be a court for the purpose of Section 5 of the Limitation Act. Section 5 of the Lim