( 1 ) RULE in Special Civil Application Nos. 10722, 10762, 13299, 1330, 13301, 13302, 10761 of 1994. Mr. Amit Panchal, learned A. G. P. waives service of Rule on behalf of Officer on Special Duty and Mr. Nanavati waives service of Rule on behalf of Gujarat Industrial Development Corporation Ltd. At the request of the learned Advocates for the parties, all the matters are heard today and are disposed of by this common judgment as the question involved in the matter is the same. The facts are taken from Special Civil Application No. 7126 of 1995.

( 2 ) FACTS : For establishment of an industrial estate in Bharuch district, respondent No. 1 (hereinafter referred to as the Collector or Special Land Acquisition officer) issued a notification on 15-1-1982 under S. 4 of the Land Acquisition act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), for acquiring large area of land. After following the procedure laid down under the Act, the Collector declared an award under S. 11 (1) of the Act on 13-11-1987 and awarded a sum of Rs. 22,000. 00 per hectare. The petitioners in all these petitions, accepted the award under protest claiming higher amount for compensation. In Special Court Application no. 7126 of 1995, the petitioner forwarded an application under S. 18 for reference to the Court. Said Application was prepared and signed on 19-12-1987 and was posted on 19-12-1987 forwarding the same to the Officer on Special Duty, ahmedabad by a registered letter. In para 22 of the application, the petitioner has indicated the figures as to what amount should have been actually paid and his claim for the remaining amount. Vide reply Annexure "b", the petitioner was informed to remain present on 24-5-1993 to show cause as to why his application should not be filed as the same is beyond the period prescribed under S. 18 (2) of the Act. Vide Annexure "c", the petitioner pointed out that he has posted the application within prescribed period and if for some reason, the same has not been received within the period of limitation, the date on which the letter was posted, should be taken into consideration for calculating the period of limitation as prescribed under S. 18 (2) of the Act. It was contended that as the letter was posted within the time prescribed, it should be deemed to have been received by the Officer on special Duty on the date on which it was posted. However, by an order, forwarded by a registered post dated 23-7-1993, the Officer on Special Duty rejected the application and against the said order, the petitioner has filed the petition in this court on 13th December, 1993.

( 3 ) MR. Vin, learned Advocate appearing for the petitioners has contended that looking to the language of S. 18 of the Act, the date of posting of an application under S. 18 of the Act, should be construed as the date on which the same is received by Officer on Special Duty or the Collector as the case may be. Section 18 of the Act reads as under :"18. Reference to Court :- (1) Any person interested who has not accepted the award may, by written application to the Collector, require that the matter be referred by the Collector for determination of the Court whether his objection be to the measurement of the land, the amount of the compensation, the persons 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 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, within six weeks from the date of Collectors award; (b) in other cases, within six weeks of the receipt of the notice from the Collector under S. 12, sub-S. (2) or within six months from the date of the Collectors award, which ever period shall first expire".

( 4 ) THE words used are "provided that every such application shall be made" and relying on the decision of