JUDGMENT :

1. Rule. Mr.Jayneel Parikh, learned AGP waives service of notice of rule on behalf of the respondents.

2. As a short issue is involved in the present writ petitions, the same are decided today.

3. By way of the present petitions, the petitioners are challenging the orders dated 27.12.2021, which were received by the petitioners on 25.1.2022, whereby respondent No.2 has refused to send reference of the petitioners to the District Court under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (“the Act” for short) on the ground of delay and non-payment of court fee.

4. The short facts giving rise to the present petition are such that the land of the petitioners being Survey No.33 admeasuring 0-46-13 Sq.mtr of village Vanod, Taluka Dasada, District Surendranagar came to be acquired for construction of branch canal by the Sardar Sarovar Nigam. The Collector had passed an award on 24.5.1996 in Case No.122/92. It is the specific case of the petitioners that notice, as contemplated under section 12(2) of the Act, has been not issued and served upon the petitioners, and therefore, the petitioners were not aware about the passing of the award by the Collector. The petitioners and their representative were also not present in the office of respondent No.2 when the award came to be passed. The petitioners, in the month of November 2017, came to know about passing of the award by the Collector, and therefore, by a written application dated 14/11/2017 requested office of respondent no.2 to provide him a copy of award and notice under section 12 (2) of the Act. The office of respondent no.2 by a letter dated 12/03/2018 provided copy of the award to the petitioners and informed the petitioners that copy of notice under section 12 (2) of the Act is not available in the record of respondent no.2. After getting copy of award on 12/03/2018 the petitioners, without any delay, filed a reference application in the office of respondent no.2 on 19/03/2018.

The office of the respondent no.2 by the notice dated 13.11.2018 informed the petitioners that the reference application filed by the petitioners is beyond the period of limitation, and therefore, fixed the matter for preliminary hearing on delay on 30/11/2018. On 30/11/2018 the petitioners along with their advocate appeared before respondent no.2 and explained reasons for delay in filling the reference application. It is also specifically pleaded by the petitioners that notice under section 12 (2) of the Act was not served upon the petitioners and therefore, limitation will not commence from the date of award. Since the petitioners received the copy of award on 12/03/2018 from the office of respondent no.2 and hence, within 7 days, they have filed the reference application in the office of respondent no.2 with a prayer to send the same to the District Court for adjudication on merit.

It is the case of the petitioners that after hearing the matter by respondent no.2 on 30/11/2018 the same was kept for order by respondent no.2 and it was orally informed to the petitioners that copy of the order will be sent to his address. On 27/06/2019 the petitioners by an application inquired from the office of respondent no.2 regarding status of the order.

Since even after passage of more than 1 year, the respondent no.2 did not pass any order in the matter, the petitioners filed a writ petition being Special Civil Application No.1910 of 2020 seeking a direction on the respondent to pass order within time bound schedule. This Court by an order dated 05/03/2021 directed the respondent no.2 to hear and decide the application of the petitioners within three months, in any case, latest by 30/06/2021. As per the direction of this Court, respondent no.2 heard the petitioners and by the impugned order dated 27/12/2021 dismissed the land reference of the petitioners, and therefore, the present petitions are filed challenging the impugned order 27/12/2021.

5. Learned advocate Mr.Aakash Patel appearing fo