JUDGMENT - A.V. SAVANT, J.:---Rule. By consent, rule made returnable forthwith and heard both the learned Counsel.

2. The questions of law which arise for our consideration are :--

(i) Whether in entertaining an application under section 18(1) of the land Acquisition Act, 1894 praying for a reference being made to the Court, the Collector acts as a Court ? and

(ii) Whether the provisions of section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 apply to such an application made under section 18(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894?

Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, which is a Central legislation, reads as under:-

"18 (1) Any person interested who has not accepted the award or the amendment thereof may be written application to the Collector, require that the matter be referred by the Collector for the determination of the Court, whether his objection be to the measurement of the land, the amount of the compensation the person to whom it is payable or the apportionment of the compensation among the persons interested.

(2) The application shall state the grounds on which objection to the award or the amendment is taken :

Provided that 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 or the amendment within six weeks from the date of the Collector's award or the amendment.

(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 or the amendment, whichever period shall first expire."

Sub-section (3) has been added in section 18 in its application to the State of Maharashtra by virtue of the Maharashtra Act No. 38 of 1964. Said sub-section (3) reads as under :---

"(3) 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".

Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 reads as under :---

"5. Extension of prescribed period in certain cases --- Any appeal or any application, other than an application under any of the provisions of Order XXI of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, may be admitted after the prescribed period if the appellant or the applicant satisfies the Court that he had sufficient cause for not preferring the appeal or making the application within such period".

3. The facts, which are not in dispute, are that the Award was declared on 31st December, 1993. It is stated in para 2 of the application for reference that the applicant was not present when the award was declared. It is then stated that "the notice under section 12(2) of the said Act was served on the applicant on........" The date is left blank and this is followed by a bald statement "therefore the petition is in time". The application for reference was made as late as on 26th November, 1996 by the heirs of the original claimant Ramchandra Genu Thorat who had expired on 10th January, 1996. The Special Land Acquisition Officer has rejected the application on the ground that the application was filed beyond the period of limitation prescribed under section 18(2) proviso (b) of the said Act. It has also been observed that the requisite award was not annexed nor was the requisite stamp affixed. In the circumstances, the petitioners' prayer for making a reference to the Court for determination of the compensation was rejected. It is this letter dated 7th January, 1997 which is challenged in the present petition.

4. On the questions of law mentioned in para 2 above, there was a divergence of views in this Court, as is evident from the judgment of the Division Bench in (P.W. Gadgil v. P.Y. Deshpande)1, reported at A.I.R. 1983, Bombay, 342, which was over-ruled by the Full Bench decision of this Court in (Bhupal Premchand Shah and others v. State of Maharashtra)2, report

Click Here to Read the rest of this document