MP 1 CRA144_10 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 144 OF 2010 Digambar Rangnath Patil and others ... Applicants Versus State of Maharashtra and others ... Respondents Mr. A. B. Avhad for Applicants. Ms. V. S. Mhaispurkar, AGP for Respondent Nos. 1 and 4. Mr. T. J. Pandian for Respondent Nos. 2 and 3. CORAM : B.R. GAVAI, J. MONDAY, MARCH 28, 2011 P. C. : Taken up for final hearing. 2. The present petition which is filed under Section 18 (3) of the Land Acquisition Act (“said Act” for short) challenges the order dated 1st August 2009 vide which the respondent No. 4 has refused to refer the reference made by the present petitioner to the Court. 3. The land of the petitioner has been acquired by the respondent Nos. 1 and 4 for the project undertaken by respondent Nos. 2 and 3. In the said proceedings, an award under Section 11 of the said Act came to be passed on 19th December 2003. However, it is not disputed that the petitioner was not given notice of the said award. The petitioner when came to know that the award was passed, he approached the office of the respondent No. 4 on 13th June 2005 and applied for the MP 2 CRA144_10 copy of the award which was given to him on the same day. The petitioner thereafter made an application to the Collector on 22nd July 2005. The said application is rejected on the ground that it is made beyond the prescribed limitation. 4. Undisputedly, though the award is passed on 19th December 2003, the notice as required under Section 2 of Section 12 of the Land Acquisition Act was not given to the petitioner till 24th April 2007. It is for the first time that a notice was issued under Section 12(2) for a part of the land. Undisputedly, the petitioner was not present when the order was passed by the Collector on 19th December 2003. The petitioner after coming to know that the award being passed, suo moto appeared before the Collector and applied for the copy which was given to him on 13th June 2005. The application under Section 18 has been filed on 22nd July 2005. It can thus be clearly seen that after the petitioner came to know about the award being passed and obtaining a copy, the application has been filed within two weeks. As a matter of fact, notice under Section 12(2) is given much later i.e. on 24th April 2007. In that view of the matter, the impugned order is not sustainable. 5. Revision application is allowed in terms of prayer clause (b). However, in the facts and circumstances, no order as to costs. (B.R. GAVAI, J)