For the purpose of widening of the road from Noble Talkies Junction to Mehdipatnam Junction, notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, 'the Act') was issued on 17.1.2008. Property of the petitioner was acquired by following due process of law and award was passed on 26.11.2008. The case of the petitioner is, petitioner was not aware of passing of the award. To his surprise, petitioner was served Section 12(2) notice dated 31.5.2011, served on her on 18.7.2011 through special messenger. On 18.7.2011, petitioner was served with cheques towards compensation amount determined. Disputing the compensation amount paid on 18.7.2011, petitioner filed application dated 11.8.2011 before the 3rd respondent for reference under Section 18 of the Act. The said application of the petitioner was rejected by order dated 21.8.2012 on the ground that the application filed under Section 18 is time barred.

2. Petitioner submitted an application under Right to Information Act, on 1.10.2012, on which information was furnished on 28.11.2012. In the information furnished, against Sl.No.5, it was stated that award copy was not communicated to her earlier and the same is enclosed. Petitioner filed another application dated 21.8.2013 under Right to Information Act, soliciting information on the date and time of despatch of notice under Section 12(2) of the Act. Petitioner was informed that notice was sent through the Special Revenue Inspector. With reference to service of copy of award, petitioner was informed that along with two cheques paid on 18.7.2011, copy of the award was also enclosed and another copy of the award was issued on 30.11.2012.

3. On instructions, learned Assistant Government Pleader submits that according to proviso to Section 18, an application for enhancement of compensation should be made within six weeks from the date of receipt of notice under Section 12(2) of the Act. Petitioner was served Section 12(2) notice dated 31.5.2011 on the same day. He thus contends that the limitation for making an application under Section 18 starts from that day and as the application dated 11.8.2011 was submitted beyond the period prescribed under Section 18, the same was validly rejected.

4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the award was not enclosed to Section 12(2) notice. Copy of the award was not served to the petitioner prior to 18.7.2011. Even 18.7.2011 is taken as relevant date, the application under Section 18 was made within six weeks from that date and that date alone is criteria for the computation of the period of limitation. In support of his contention, learned Counsel placed reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in Premji Nathu v. State of Gujarat and another, (2012) 5 SCC 250.

5. Petitioner filed WP No. 29256 of 2011 seeking a writ of mandamus against the action of respondent in not referring the award to the competent Court for adjudication under Section 18 of the Act for determination of correct market value. Petition was disposed, of by an order dated 16.11.2011 directing the respondent to refer the matter to the competent civil Court as contemplated under Section 18 of the Act, if the petitioner fulfils the condition laid down under the Act. Pursuant to the above order of this Court, request of the petitioner for reference to the civil Court for enhancement of the compensation was rejected, decision of which is communicated to the Counsel representing the petitioner vide letter dated 21.8.2012. The rejection was on the ground that after service of notice under Section 12(2), dated 31.5.2011, served on 31.5.2011, application for reference under Section 18 was not made within six weeks and, therefore, such application is not maintainable.

6. The issue for consideration is whether the period of limitation for making an application for reference under Section 18 of the Act, should be computed from the date of service of notice under Section 12(2) of the Act even if the copy