D. RAJU, C.J.—The above revision has been filed against the order passed by the Land Acquisition Collector, Beas Dam Project, Talwara exercising the powers under Section 28-A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) dated 18.11.1995, where under the application made by the Petitioner came to be rejected on the ground that it has been made after 91 days and thereby it suffered a delay of one day since the application under Section 28-A of the Act was not filed within ninety days as stipulated in the said provision of the Act. In the light of the submissions made by the learned Counsel appearing on either side, I have tried to calculate the limitation and at one stage, I was of the view, with reference to the dates given by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner to be taken into account for computing the period of three months in terms of provision of Section 10-A that it comes to only ninety days and, therefore, it may be within the permitted period of 90 days. But Mr. Chauhan, learned Deputy Advocate General brought to my notice that the copy of the Award filed before the Collector claiming benefit under Section 28-A of the Act and endorsements made by the Court thereon may be perused and if properly construed and the endorsements and entries made therein are to be taken into account, the exclusion of the period from 13.12.1990, when the copy was attested to 16.9.1991 when the delivery of the copy was taken was not permissible in law and that it would show that the application was barred by limitation. Argued the learned Counsel for the State further, contending that if the applicant sought for a copy of the award and was indifferent in taking delivery even after it was made ready for such a long time, the benefit of such period when he was at lapse cannot be given to his credit, for being excluded from computation. In the light of the above, I had to necessarily took into the very certified copy filed by the Petitioner before the Collector as the basis for claiming benefits under Section 28-A. For the purpose of reference and completeness of record, the endorsements as found given on the said certified copy is set out as follows: "1. The number of application in register CD. 2 : 1952

2. The date of presentation of the application for copy : 3.10.1990.

3. The name of copyist : Sd/-

4. The date on which the copy completed: 13.12.1990.

5. The date on which the copy examined and attested : 13.12.1990.

6. The cause of delivery if the copy has been completed after the third day from the date of application:

7. The number of words and pages:

5.

8. The cost of the copy as prescribed under the rules: 7.50

9. Urgent fees:....

10. Search fee:............

11. Registration and postal charges:—

12. V.P.P. charges:—

13. Total recovery : 7.50

14. Date of delivery: 16.9.1991." From the said endorsements which, in my view, admits of no controversy on facts, the learned Counsel for the State, in my view, is right in his objection that the period beyond 14.12.1990 till date of delivery or thereafter cannot be excluded in computing the period of three months stipulated in the provision to Section 28-A of the Act. If that be the position, as it ought to be, the application by the Petitioner would be hopelessly barred and it could not be claimed to have been filed within the time stipulated.

2. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted further that if that [ be so, the proceedings may be remitted to the Collector to enable the Petitioner ! to present an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 seeking for condonation of delay, if any, explaining sufficient reasons for such delay. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner placed reliance upon the decision of a Division Bench of this Court reported in 1996 (1) Sim. LC. 191 (Santokh Singh and another v. State of H.R and another). That was a case wherein a Division Bench of this Court dealt with an appeal under Section 54 and the validity of an order rejecting