The filing of the certified copy of the award is not a mandatory requirement for filing an application for reference under Section 18 of the Rajasthan Land Acquisition Act, 1953.

1. N.M. Kasliwal, J. - All the above three revisions are disposed of by one single order as identical question of law is involved in all the three cases.

2. The only controversy in the present case is whether the filing of the certified copy of award is necessary along with the application for reference filed 18 of the Rajasthan Land Acquisition Act, 1953 (here in after referred to as the Act). The admitted facts of the case are that the award in the present case was given on September 22, 1986 11 of the Act. The petitioners moved an application for making the reference on October 30, 1986 18 of the Act. It is not in dispute that the aforesaid application filed 18 of the Act was within six weeks of the passing of the award. On June 26, 1987 the learned Officer on special duty, Urban Development and Housing Department, Rajasthan passed an order that the copy of the award had not been filed along with the application for reference and as such it was not considered possible to send the reference to the Civil Judge. The petitioners were directed to be informed of the said order. Thereafter, the petitioners submitted the copy of the award on July 13, 1987. The Special Officer again considered the matter on August 24, 1987 and held that the reference was barred by limitation in as much as the reference application shall be due to be complete only on July 13, 1987 and on that day the period of limitation having expired, it was not possible to take any action on the application for reference and in this view of the matter the application was dismissed. Aggrieved against the aforesaid orders dated June 26, 1987 and August 24, 1987 these revisions have been filed.

3. Mr. Garg, learned Counsel for the non-petitioners No. 2 first raised a preliminary objection that the revision is not maintainable as it is directed against the two orders dated June 26, 1987 and August 24, 1987. It was submitted that no revision can lie against two orders and the petitioners should restrict their revision against one order only.

4. I see no force in this contention. So far as the order dated June 26, 1987 is concerned, it is totally innocuous. In the order dated June 26, 1987, it was observed that the application for reference is not accompanied with the copy of award and as such it was not possible to take any further action and a direction was given to inform the petitioners accordingly. No order was passed dismissing the application. Thereafter, the copy of the award filed on July 13, 1987 and subsequently, the order was passed on August 24, 1987 holding the application for reference as time barred Thus, the main order is of August 24, 1987 and the present revision is maintainable against this order and if this order dated August 24, 1987 is set aside then the order dated June 26, 1987 automatically goes away.

5. Another important question to be considered in the case is whether there is any requirement 18 of the Act or any other law for filing the certified copy of the award along with the application for reference made 18 of the Act. Mr. Garg, learned Counsel for the non-petitioner No. 2 only placed reliance on the language of Section 18 of the Act and was unable to show any other provision of the Rajasthan Land Acquisition Rules or other provision making it necessary to file the certified copy of the award along with the application for reference. A plain reading of Section 18 of the Act clearly shows that the only requirement is to move an application in writing to the Collector, requiring him that the matter be referred for determination to the Court. The requirement is that the application shall state the grounds on which objection to the award or the amendment there of is taken. If the person making such application was present or represented before the Collector at the time when he made the award then such application has to be filed within six weeks from the date of the Collector's award or the amendment thereof and in other cases within s