V.D. Gyani, J.-l. This First Appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 18-2-1980, passed by the IIIrd Additional District Judge, Indore, in Misc. Judical Case No. 121 of 1977.

2. Short facts of the case are that the State of Madhya Pradesh acquired a piece of agricultural land, bearing Survey Nos. 584 and 586, admeasuring 5.09 acres, situated in the city of Indore. The Land Acquisition Officer awarded Rs. 5000/- per acre for compensation of the said land.

3. Since the owner of the land was not satisfied with the compensation as awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer, he prayed for a reference, which was accordingly made to the Court of Additional District Judge, Indore, under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act.

4. The learned Addl. District Judge framed the following four issues:

(1) whether the compensation as awarded to the objector (land owner) was just and proper (2) whether the objector submitted his objections under section 18 of the Act in time, and (3) whether there was any good or sufficient cause on the part of the State for not referring the matter to the proper Court for over fourteen years, and (4) relief and costs.

5. The first two issues have been decided in favour of the respondent and the third issue has been answered in the negative. Aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment and decree the State has preferred this appeal, raising the following point: (1) that the land in question being agricultural land, the lower Court erred in appreciating the evidence on record and holding that the acquired land being situated in the city, its compensation should be fixed at 00.50 paise per square feet, (2) the lower Court overlooked the fact that the land was situated not in a developed colony, but in a slum area, which is most backward area in the city of Indore; hence it could not be compared with the land falling within the area of Palsikar colony (3) that even in the matter of calculation of compensation, the lower Court erred in not excluding that area of land, which would be required for providing approach roads, open space, drainage, etc.

6. It was also contended on behalf of the State that the learned Addl. District Judge was wrong in holding that the Land Acquisition Officer did not make a reference within a reasonable time, which was in fact made after fourteen years of taking objections under section 18 of the Act.

7. Lastly, it was contended that the objector-owner of the land did not apply for making of a reference under section 18 of the Act, within the prescribed period.

8. Shri Chaphekar, learned counsel for respondent has on the other hand, supported the judgment and decree as passed by the lower Court and also claimed that in view of the amendment made to the Land Acquisition Act in 1984, the respondent was entitled to the benefits under section 23 and 28 of the Land Acquisition Act.

9. The first point raised by the appellant is regarding limitation. In this connection, few dates may be noted. The award was passed by the Land Acquisition Officer on 7-4-1963 which was communicated to the respondent on 21-12-1963. The application for reference was filed on 6-1-1964-apparently within six weeks of service of notice of award. These facts are not in dispute. As a matter of fact, question of limitation does not arise. The making of a reference was delayed by fourteen years.

10. Proviso to section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act envisages two situations: (I) if the person making it was present or represented before the Collector at the time when he made his award, within six weeks from the date of the Collector's award, and (2) in other cases, within six weeks of the receipt of the notice from the Collector under section 12, sub-section (2), or within six months from the date of the Collector's award, whichever period shall first ex pire.

11. The very fact that the collector ordered issuence of a notice goes to show that the respondent was not present on the date of making of the award, hence the nece