JUDGMENT

Mukerji, J. - This is an appeal by the Secretary of State for India in Council and arises out of a decree of the learned Subordinate Judge of Mirzapur acting as the "Court" within the meaning of Clause (d), Section 3, Land Acquisition Act, 1884.

2. The plea in appeal is that the reference by the Collector was made on a belated application of the respondents and the reference should have been thrown out by the learned Subordinate Judge.

3. The facts briefly are as follows: The award made by the Collector in the case bears the date 15th June 1923. It could not be traced, that at any rate is my reading of the judgment of the Court below and the learned Government Advocate has not been able to state the date when the award was actually filed in the office of the Collector. Notices were ordered to be issued, by the Collector, to the two owners on 30th October 1923. They were actually served on Bhagwan Prasad on 18th January 1924, and on Mt. Anandi Kunwar on 23rd January 1924. The owners applied for a reference being made to the Collector, within six weeks of the service of notice on them. A reference was accordingly made. A preliminary objection was taken on behalf of the Collector that the reference was time barred. The learned Judge refused to entertain the plea of limitation raised by the present respondent and held that it was not open to him to consider whether the reference was barred by time and he investigated the case and decided what was the amount payable to the owners.

4. As I have already stated, the plea on behalf of the appellant is that the reference should have been thrown out by the learned Judge as barred by time.

5. On behalf of the respondents it has been urged firstly, that the learned Judge was right in holding that he could not throw out the reference and that, in any case, the reference was within time.

6. It will be noticed that u/s 18, Land Acquisition Act, an application by a person who has not accepted the award to make a reference to the Court must be made within a specified period. This period, in the case of the owners who were not present when the award was made is:

within six weeks of the receipt of the notice... or within six months from the date of the Collector's award, whichever period shall first expire.

7. It is clear that the maximum period allowed for making a petition to the Collector is six months from the "date of the award." This maximum period is liable to be cut short, if there is a service of notice by the Collector, concerning the award, on a party interested in making the application. In the case of service, the time allowed is six weeks from the service, provided those six weeks do not go beyond the six months already mentioned, from the date of the award.

8. The contention of the learned Government Advocate is that the award having been made on 15th June 1923, the period of limitation for the application by the owners, expired on 15th December 1923, and the mere fact that notice on them was not served till after the expiry of the limitation was immaterial.

9. The first point that arises is whether the "Court" had any jurisdiction to review the proceedings of the Collector in making the reference.

10. The scheme of the Land Acquisition Act has been considered by their Lordships of the Privy Council in Ezra v. Secy. of State [1905] 32 Cal. 605 vide pp. 628 and 629: This judgment and a consideration of all the sections of the Act will show that when the Government decides to acquire a piece of land, it is required to pay a price to the owner. That price is investigated by the Collector on behalf of the Government and as its agent. In making the award, the Collector offers a certain price to the owners of the property. It is for the owners to decide whether they would accept the price or they would require a judicial determination of the price by an independent authority, namely the Court: vide Section 12 and Section 18. On receipt of an application "by any person interested who has no