{1} IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.170 OF 2007 Sampati s/o Ginyandev Naiknaware Age-60 years, Occ-Agri. R/o Sawargaon, Tq-Majalgaon Dist-Beed APPLICANT VERSUS 1. The State of Maharashtra Through Secretary, Revenue & Forest Department, Maharashtra State Mantralaya, Mumbai 2. Special Land Acquisition Officer Jaikwadi Project No.1, Beed RESPONDENTS ....... Mr. V.D.Salunke, Advocate for applicant Mr. N.N.Jadhav, AGP for respondents State ....... [CORAM : A.V.POTDAR, J.] DATE: 5th April 2010 ORAL JUDGMENT: 1. By the present civil revision application, the applicant has challenged the order dated 03.03.1989 and also prayed to direct the respondents to scrutinize the reference u/s 18 submitted {2} by the applicant and refer the same to the Reference Court. 2. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned AGP. 3. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, this revision application is heard finally at the stage of admission itself. 4. It appears that the impugned order dated 03.03.1989, was challenged by the applicant by filing writ petition No. 5247/2006, which came to be disposed of on 06.10.2006. As the learned AGP had made a statement that the record reveals that copy of this order had been sent to the petitioner, the writ petition was allowed to withdraw as the petitioner intended to exhaust the remedy of challenging the order dated 03.03.1989. Hence, the present civil revision application. 5. It appears that the petitioner and other agriculturists, whose lands were acquired, had made applications before the Collector to refer their reference u/s 18 of the Land Acquisition Act to the Reference Court. It appears that the application for reference came to be disposed of, as the concerned applicants had not paid the court fee stamp within time. It further appears that this order came to be passed on 03.03.1989, however, subsequently on 07.09.1990, the Special Land Acquisition Officer, Jayakwadi {3} Project, Beed, had accepted the court fee stamp worth Rs.1490/- from the present applicant, however not referred his reference to the Reference Court. Details are given in the application itself in respect of the circumstances in which the application to refer the reference to the Reference Court is delayed. As even after the payment of the Court Fee Stamps, the reference was not referred to the civil court, writ petition was filed. It appears that in the said writ petition a statement was made on behalf of the government that the copy of the order was sent to the petitioner, however neither in the said writ petition nor in the present civil revision application, copy of the order is produced, which indicates that the order was communicated to the petitioner, however a stand is taken that as the reference is not filed within the period of limitation and hence the same was rejected. Once the court fee is accepted, it is for the Collector to refer the reference to the Reference Court and then it is for the reference court to consider whether it was filed within a period of limitation or not. The said matter will be considered by the reference court and not by the authorities. It is tried to urge that as the writ petition as well as civil revision application are filed beyond the period of limitation, the Government will be saddled with interest, if the reference is referred to the Court. The said submission cannot be accepted. For, the reference court can reject the reference if it ultimately come to the conclusion that the reference is not filed within the period of limitation. Considering this aspect, as the court fee stamps are accepted by the Collector, however, not referred the {4} reference to the reference court, the order impugned requires to be quashed and set aside. 6. The civil revision application is allowed in terms of prayer clause “B” and “C”. 7. Rule is thus made absolute as indicated above. Civil Revision Application stands disposed of accordingly. [A.V.POTDAR, J.] drp/B10/cra170-07