Devan Ramachandran, J.

The petitioner, whose property had been acquired by the first respondent, impugns Exhibit P13 order, as per which his application for reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, was rejected holding it to be beyond time. The petitioner asserts that his application was well within time and that the authority has rejected it without proper consideration of relevant factors.

2. I have heard Sri.Suresh Kumar Kodoth, the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for the respondents.

3. I have examined Exhibit P13 order. It is a very cryptic order rejecting the claim of the petitioner merely on the ground that it has been made by him beyond time. Even though the does not say it, I believe that the Tahsildar as gone by the date of the award to find that the application of the petitioner is beyond time. The award was issued on 24.06.1999 and taking that to be the relevant date, the application made by the petitioner for reference, namely Exhibit P12, made only in the year 2011, would seem to have hit by limitation.

4. At first blush this might look in order. However, on a examination of all the factors involved in t