JUDGMENT :

Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Anuj Srivastava, learned counsel for the respondent no.2 and learned Standing Counsel for the respondent Nos.1 and 3.

2. By means of present petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 27/28.04.2007 passed by respondent no.1 by which application for petitioner under Section 18 of U.P. Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (herein after referred to as the ‘Act, 1894’) for referring the matter for determination of court regarding amount of compensation was rejected on the ground that the same was time barred.

3. Factual matrix of the present case is that the State has issued notification dated 06.01.1992 under Section 4 of the ‘Act, 1894’ and thereafter notification dated 22.09.1992 under Section 6 of the ‘Act, 1894’ for acquiring the land for plan development by respondent no.2-Noida Development Authority. By way of above notification, 1/3rd part in Khasra No. 151 belongs to petitioner in village Hazipur, Pargana and Tehsil Dadari, District-Gautam Budh Nagar was acquired. The award for the portion land of the petitioner in Khasra No.151 was also given on 13.01.2004 by respondent No.1. After delivering the award, registered notice dated 12.08.2004 under Section 12(2) of ‘Act, 1894’ was also issued to the petitioner which was received by the petitioner admittedly on 24.08.2004. After receiving the aforesaid notice, petitioner filed an objection dated 25.08.2004 against the notice dated 12.08.2004 but no action was taken. Thereafter the petitioner submitted an application dated 20.09.2004 before the Collector, Gautambudh Nagar under Section 18 of the ‘Act, 1894’ to refer the matter to the Court for determination of higher/correct compensation for the acquired land of the petitioner. When the above application dated 20.09.2004 remained undisposed then the petitioner preferred a Writ Petition No. 6180 of 2007 before this Court and the same was disposed of by order dated 08.02.2007 directing the Collector to decide the application dated 20.09.2004 submitted by the petitioner under Section 18 of the ‘Act, 1894’.

4. In pursuance of the order dated 08.02.2007 of this Court, respondent no.1 has passed the impugned order dated 27.04.2007 after hearing the parties including the petitioner and rejected the same on the ground that the same is time barred because the application of the petitioner under Section 18 was submitted on 20.09.2004 but as per Section 18(2)(b) of the ‘Act, 1894’. It should have been filed within six months from the date of award i.e. till 12.07.2004.

5. Contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the impugned order dated 27/28.04.2007 passed by the respondent no.1 is absolutely erroneous because the petitioner first time came to know about the award dated 13.01.2004 only after receiving the notice dated 12.04.2004 under Section 12(2) of the ‘Act, 1894’ on 24.08.2004. Thereafter he immediately filed his application dated 20.09.2004 under Section 18 of the ‘Act, 1894’ therefore, the same was within six weeks from the date of receiving the notice under Section 12(2) of the ‘Act, 1894’. Therefore, his application under Section 18 of the Act, 1894 was well within time and therefore prayed for quashing of the impugned order.

6. Counsel for the respondent no.2 as well as Standing Counsel for the State have submitted that the impugned order is absolutely correct because application of the petitioner under Section 18 of the ‘Act, 1894’ was time barred because the same was filed beyond six months from the date of award and also relied upon the judgements Officer on Special Duty (Land Acquisition) and Ors. vs Shah Manilal Chandulal and Ors. reported in (1996) 9 SCC 414 and Bhagwan Das vs State of U.P. reported in (2010) 3 SCC 545 to show that Section 5 of Limitation Act is not applicable in the application under Section 18 of the ‘Act, 1894’.

7. Considering the rival contention of parties and perusal of record, we find it is admitted p