JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Sri Pankaj Agarwal, learned counsel for petitioners and learned Standing Counsel for respondent no.2.

2. The petitioners by means of the present writ petition have assailed the order dated 12.09.2017 passed by District Judge, Alilgarh in Arbitration Misc. Case No.10 of 2014 whereby he has rejected the application of the petitioners under Section 5 of Limitation Act for condoning the delay in filing the application under Section 34 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act, 1996').

3. The facts in brief are that petitioners claim that they are the owner of Gata No.78/3 situated at village Padiyawali, Tehsil-Koil, District Aligarh. The land was acquired under Railways Act, 1989 as amended in 2008 and a notification was issued under Section 20 (A) and 20 (E) of the Act, 1989. Consequently, an award was made on 18.05.2012 in respect of land of petitioners respondent no.2-Competent Authority/Special Land Acquisition Officer (Joint Organisation), Aligarh.

4. It is stated that though it was mentioned in the award that copy of award shall be dispatched to the tenure holder, but at no point of time, petitioners were ever informed about the award dated 18.05.2012 or certified copy of award duly signed by the competent authority was ever sent or served upon the petitioners or to any of their family members. It is further stated that the petitioners never came to know about the award dated 18.05.2012 and came to know about the award through other villagers.

5. The petitioners, thereafter, on 03.03.2014 applied for certified copy of the award which was made available to them on 12.03.2014. After obtaining certified copy of award, petitioners contacted their counsel who advised them to challenge the award under Section 34 of the Act, 1996. The petitioners, thereafter, filed an application under Section 34 read with Section 20 H (6) of the Railways Amendment Act, 2008 on 15.04.2014.

6. According to petitioners, application under Section 34 of the Act, 1996 was filed by them was within time from the date of receiving the certified copy of the award.

7. The application under Section 34 of the Act, 1996 was contested by respondents by filing objection stating therein that application under Section 34 of the Act, 1996 was barred by limitation and hence, deserves to be dismissed.

8. According to petitioners, though objection with regard to limitation raised by the respondents was frivolous, but as abandoned caution, they moved an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condoning the delay in filing the application under Section 34 of the Act, 1996. The application was filed on the ground that the petitioners were not aware about the legal provision that under the new Arbitration Act, 1996, limitation of filing application under Section 34 is 90 days with one month grace period. It is stated that petitioners filed application under Section 34 of the Act, 1996 within time after obtaining certified copy of the award dated 18.05.2012.

9. The respondents filed objection to the said application contending inter alia that Act, 1996 is a special act and provisions contained therein are special provisions, therefore, provisions of limitation act are not applicable. The further objection raised by the respondents was that ignorance of law is not an excuse to condone the delay in filing the application.

10. The court below vide order dated 12.09.2017 dismissed the application under Section 5 of limitation act holding that in view of the judgement of this Court in the case of State of U.P. and Others Vs. M/s Harnam Singh reported in 2015 All. C.J. 1763, provisions of Limitation Act are not applicable in proceeding in application under Section 34 of the Act, 1996. Accordingly, the court below found that as the application under Section 34 of the Act, 1996 was to be filed maximum within 120 days i.e. 90 days plus 30 days grace period as provided in Section 34 (3), but the same has been filed after the pe