JUDGMENT Exts.P11 to P18 are representations preferred by petitioners 1 to 8 seeking reference under Section 64 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (‘Act’ for short). Similarly, Exts.P19 and P20 were representations preferred by petitioners 9 and 10, which has already been considered by the 2^nd respondent/District Collector and rejected vide Exts.P21 and P22. The reason stated in Exts.P21 and P22 is the expiry of the period stipulated in (2), that is to say six weeks.

2. The 2^nd respondent had reckoned the participation of the petitioners in the proceedings which led to the issuance of the award and hence treated the cases as one governed by the proviso to Section 64 (2), thereby reckoning six weeks. Within which time, the applications for reference were not filed is the reason stated in Exts.P21 and P22. This Court notice that as per the second proviso to (2), the District Collector has power to entertain the application beyond the expiry of the period stipulated in proviso (a), for the furthe