ash 1 cra-992.10 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELATE JURISDICTION CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.992 OF 2010 Jayant Krishna Salgaonkar & Ors. .. Applicants Vs The Collector of Sindhudurg & Ors. .. Respondents -- Shri Milind Parab i/by M/s Milind Parab & Associates for the Applicants. Shri A.R. Patil, AGP for Respondents. -- CORAM ; A.S. OKA, J DATED : 28TH FEBRUARY, 2011 P.C. . This is a Civil Revision Application under Section 18(3) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (as amended by the State of Maharashtra). The challenge is to the order passed by the Sub- Divisional Officer by which the application for reference under Section 18 of the said Act made by the Revision Applicant has been rejected. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the Applicants submitted that though a notice under Section 12(2) of the said Act was served to the Applicants on 5th August, 2008, a copy of the award was not made available and, therefore, an application for obtaining certified copy of the Award was made by the Applicants on 26th August, 2008. He submitted that even in legal notice dated 21st October, 2008, a prayer was made for making a reference to the Court. He submitted that on 11th March, 2010, a specific application for reference was made which ash 2 cra-992.10 has been rejected by the impugned order. He urged that the time required for obtaining certified copy of the award was required to be excluded. 3. In view of sub-section (2) of Section 18 of the said Act, a limitation of six weeks is available for making an application for reference from the date on which the notice under Section 12(2) of the said Act was served. In the present case, the notice was served on 5th August, 2008. Even treating the Advocate’s notice dated 21st October, 2008 as an application Reference, the same was not within the period of six weeks. In view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Poshetty & Ors. v. State of Andhra Pradesh, [(1996)11 SCC 213], time required for obtaining a copy of the award cannot be excluded while computing the period of limitation and the limitation starts running from the date on which the notice under Section 12(2) of the said Act is served. 4. Hence, no case is made out for interfering with the impugned order inasmuch as the Application made by the Revision Applicant was barred by limitation. Hence, the Revision Application is rejected. It will be open for the Applicants to take compensation amount offered by the award under Section 11 of the said Act. ( A.S. OKA, J )