JUDGMENT :

Debangsu Basak, J.

1. Ten appeals are taken up for analogous hearing as they emanate out of the same order passed in ten different writ petitions.

2. The orders under appeal are all dated September 24, 2014.

3. By the impugned order, the learned Trial Judge, held that the application made under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was not within the prescribed time. Therefore, the learned Trial Judge proceeded to dismiss the writ petitions.

4. Aggrieved, the appellants/writ petitioners are before us.

5. Learned Advocate appearing for the appellants submits that, neither a copy of the award was served upon any of the appellants nor was a notice under Section 12 (2) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 served upon any of the appellants. He submits that, the period of limitation prescribed under Section 18 of the Act of 1894 commences, upon fulfilment of the criteria specified therein. None of the appellants were aware of the award or its contents. No notice, as noted above, under Section 12(2) of the Act of 1894 was served upon the appellants.

6. Relying upon AIR 2018 Supreme Court 3536 (Vijay Mahadeorao Kubade v. State of Maharashtra & Anr.), he submits that, limitation pre