This is an application for the issue of a writ of mandamus directing the Revenue Divisional Officer of Ranipet to refer the question of compensation payable to the petitioner under the Land Acquisition Act to the Court under section 18(2) of the said Act.

The facts of the case lie in a very narrow compass, and may be briefly set out. The petitioner is the managing member of a joint Hindu family owning, among others, land bearing S. No.129 in the village of Muppaduvetti in Wallajah Taluk in North Arcot District. This land was the subject of notification for the purpose of acquisition under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act. The Government took possession of the property. The petitioner claimed Rs.30 per cent for the lands and also additional compensation for a well on the property as well as for loss of certain privileges. The members of the joint family represented by the petitioner gave him letters of authority to represent them and also authorised the petitioner to receive the compensation due to them. At the enquiry which was conducted under section 11, which was held on 12th June, 1950, the petitioner appeared in person and claimed compensation at not less than Rs.30 per cent for the land acquired. Evidently, orders were reserved. The petitioner received subsequently no notice, either that an award was going to be passed nor was he sent a copy of the award as contemplated by section 12(2) of the Act. The petitioner having heard that some award was passed, from a relation of his, applied on 25th October, 1951 to the Revenue Divisional Officer for a certified copy of the award and also intimated him that he had to file a reference within six months after knowledge of the order, in the event of his not being awarded the compensation claimed by him, requested him to despatch the copy at an early date. The Revenue Divisional Officer thereupon replied by communication, dated 31st October, 1951 stating that, “in consideration of the objection preferred by the petitioner dated, 4th June, 1950, the compensation due to him as per award dated 9th March 1951 was referred to the Civil Court under section 31(2).” As there had been no dispute regarding the persons to share in the compensation amount, the reference to section 31(2) seems to be misleading. The petitioner thereupon made an application on 17th December, 1951, to the Revenue Divisional Officer requiring him to refer the question of the quantum of compensation to the Civil Court under section 18(2) of the Land Acquisition Act. This application has been rejected by the Revenue Divisional Officer on the ground that it was filed, too late under section 18. The copy of the award received by the petitioner showed that the award was passed on 9th March, 1951.

The contention of Mr. Rama Rao Saheb, learned counsel for the petitioner, is that the application for the reference by the petitioner was within time under the proviso to section 18(2), and that the Revenue Divisional Officer had no jurisdiction to decline the reference. In the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the; Government, it is stated-

“Though the award enquiry was over on 12th June, 1950, the award could not be passed till March, 1951, as necessary funds had not been placed at the disposal of the R.D.O., Ranipet. Notice under section 12(2) of the Land Acquisition Act was issued by the Land Acquisition Officer, but the Tahsildar, Wallajah, returned them unserved as the party was a non-resident. No reference under section 18(2) of the Act was made to the Court, as the petitioner’s request for making such a reference was received only on 17th December, 1951, after the time allowed-

With regard to the allegations that the provisions of section 12(2) of the Land Acquisition Act have not been properly complied with..........notice under section 12(2) was issued but was not served on him as he was not present. However, failure to serve the notice does not render the award ultra vires..........Here the applicant, hayin