Prakash Tatia, J.-With the consent of parties, this appeal is heard on merits for final disposal. (2). The appellant has preferred this appeal against the Judgment and decree passed by Addl. Distt. Judge No. 2, Udaipur in civil case No. 3/1996 whereby the reference petition under Section 18(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was rejected by the court below holding it to be barred by time in view of interpretation of Section 18(2)(b) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short as “Act of 1894”). (3). The brief facts of the case are that a notification under Section 4 of the Act of 1894 was issued on 23.90 which was published in Official Gazette on 29.3.90.Thereafter completing the formalities, the award was passed by the Land Acquisition Officer, Udaipur on 8.1992. (4). After the Award dated 8.92, an application was submitted by the appellant before the Land Acquisition Officer on 6.2.1993 under Section 18(1) of the Act of 1894 and subsequently amended application under Section 18(1) of the Act of 1894 was submitted on 6.4.1993. The Land Acquisition Officer, thereafter made a reference to the Civil Court and matter was sent to the Distt. Judge, Udaipur from where it was transferred to the court of Addl. Distt. Judge No. 2, Udaipur. The respondents submitted objections before the Civil Court and thereafter issues were framed and after evidence, the Court below decided issue No. 1 in favour of appellant holding that the land measuring 2259.6 sq.ft. was acquired. This finding is not under challenge before this Court. While deciding the nature of land, the court below held that the land in dispute is Abadi land. This finding is also not under challenge. The cost of land was found to be Rs. 180 sq.ft. while deciding issue No. 3 and as per finding on issue No. 4, plaintiff-claimants were held to be entitled for amount under Section 23-A of the Act of 1894 and also interest thereon. All the findings were recorded in favour of applicants-appellants by the Civil Court under Section 18(1) of the Act of 1894. But the reference was rejected only on the ground that reference was made after the expiry of period provided under Section 18 of the Act of 1894. Hence, Mr. D.S. Shishodia, Sr. Advocate appearing for the appellant submitted that findings recorded on issue No. 5 is illegal and contrary to the law laid down by Hon’ble Apex Court. (5). Learned counsel for the appellant further submitted that bare perusal of provisions of Section 18 and Section 12(2) of the Act of 1894 show that limitation for submitting the application for reference before Land Acquisition Officer is given under Section 18(2) and Section 18 provides two different contingencies which are provided in Sub-clause (a) and (b) of Sub-section (2) of Section 18 of the Act of 1894. According to counsel for the appellant in view of admitted facts that appellant was not represented by any Advocate before Land Acquisition Officer nor put in appearance personally, therefore, Sub-clause (a) of Sub-section (2) of Section 18 of the Act of 1894 is not applicable. According to learned counsel for the appellant, as per Sub-clause (b) of Sub-section (2) of Section 18, there are two contingencies providing period of limitation. One is that if notice of award is served by Collector under Section 12(2) of the Act of 1894, then limitation is of 6 weeks’ for submitting application under Section 18(1) and in other cases period of limitation is of 6 months’ from the date of award passed by the Collector. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that in view of admitted fact that neither the appellant was present before the Land Acquisition Officer nor he was represented by any Advocate or any authorised representative, hence there is no question of applicability of application under Sub-clause (a) of Sub-section (2) of Section 18 of the Act of 1894 and it is an admitted fact that no notice was issued by the Land Acquisition Officer/Collector under Section 12(2) of the Act of 1894,