IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA WRIT WRIT WRIT PETITION NO. 361 OF 1998 PETITION NO. 361 OF 1998 PETITION NO. 361 OF 1998 1. Smt. Chandravati C. Naik (deceased), 2. Shri Ramdas C. Naik, 3. Shri Shyam C. Naik, 4. Shri Srikant C. Naik, 5. Shri Audumbar C. Naik, 6. Shri Sakharam C. Naik, 7. Smt. Shantabai B. Naik, 8. Shri Arjun S. naik, 9. Shri Dashrath S. Naik, 10. Shri Vinayak S. Naik, 11. Shri Sripad S. Naik, 12. Shri Ankush S. Naik, 13. Shri Babi S. Naik, All major, residents of Bella Vista, Vaddo, Sircaim, Bardez, Goa. ... Petitioners. versus 1. The State of Goa, through its Chief Secretary, Secretariat, Panaji, Goa. 2. The Special Land Acquisition Officer (North), Irrigation Department, Mapusa, Bardez, Goa. ... Respondents. - 2 - Mrs. A. A. Agni, Advocate for the Petitioners. Mr. A. N. S. Nadkarni, Advocate General with Mr. G. Shirodkar, Additional Government Advocate for the State. CORAM: F. I. REBELLO & P. V. HARDAS, JJ. DATED: 4TH JUNE, 2003. ORAL JUDGMENT ORAL JUDGMENT ORAL JUDGMENT(PER F.I REBELLO, J.) The Petitioners applied for a reference. That application has been rejected on the ground that it was beyond the period prescribed under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The sole contention raised on behalf of the Petitioners is that the time taken for getting a certified copy of the Award be excluded and if that time is excluded then in that event, the application filed by the Petitioners is within the period of time specified under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. In that view of the matter, the relief sought for is to direct the Respondents to make a reference to the Court. 2. On the other hand, Mr. A. N. S. Nadkarni, Advocate General appearing on behalf of the Respondent No.1/State points out the Judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Officer on Special Duty(Land Officer on Special Duty(Land Officer on Special Duty(Land Acquisition) and another Acquisition) and another Acquisition) and another v. Shah Manilal Chandulal Shah Manilal Chandulal Shah Manilal Chandulal and others and others and others reported in (1996) 9 SCC 414 wherein the - 3 - Apex Court has held that the Collector has no power to condone the delay as it is not a Court. In that case what was in issue was Section 5. In the instant case, it is Section 12 which provides for exclusion of time. 3. Considering the arguments advanced, the question would be if Section 12 would be really applied on behalf of the Petitioners herein. 4. Mrs. A. A. Agni, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioners no doubt had placed reliance on a Judgment of the Apex Court in M/s. India House M/s. India House M/s. India House v. Kishan N.Lalwani Kishan N.Lalwani Kishan N.Lalwani reported in 2003 AIR SCW 78. In that case, the issue was exclusion of time before a Court and it is in those circumstances the Court held that Section 12 would apply. In the instant case, limitation for applying for reference is provided by the special provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. Section 12 would not apply, unless the Act itself had so provided. There is no such provision. A bare perusal of Section 12 would show that it is to exclude time in a suit, appeal or application. The time is in terms of the Schedule to the Limitation Act. The provisions of Section 12 are not made applicable by the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The Judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Officer on Special Officer on Special Officer on Special - 4 - Du Du Duty(Land Acquisition) and another)v. Shah Maninal Land Acquisition) and another)v. Shah Maninal Land Acquisition) and another)v. Shah Maninal Chandulal and others Chandulal and others Chandulal and others would therefore squarely apply. There is, therefore, no merit in this Petition. 5. Rule discharged. No order as to costs. F. I. REBELLO, J. P. V. HARDAS,J. RD.