..1.. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.1077 OF 2000. CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.1077 OF 2000. CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.1077 OF 2000. Smt.Bhaga Mukta Dargude. .. Applicant. versus The Special Land Acquisition Officer No.3 Pune and ors. .. Respondents. ... Mr.G.H.Keluskar for the applicant. Mr. R.S. Khadapkar, AGP for the respondents. CORAM : D.G. Karnik J. CORAM : D.G. Karnik J. CORAM : D.G. Karnik J. Date: 19th August 2006 Date: 19th August 2006 Date: 19th August 2006 P.C:- P.C:- P.C:- 1. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 2. By this revision petitioner challenges the order dated 27th November, 1998 passed by the learned Special Land Acquisition Officer No.3, Pune. ..2.. 3. The land of the petitioner was acquired under the Land Acquision Act and an award was passed on 27th March, 1997. The amount of compensation was paid to the petitioner on 13th May, 1997. On 26th may 1998 the petitioner submitted an application to Land Acqusition Officer requesting him to make reference under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. That application was rejected on the ground that it was filed after the expiry of period of six months of passing of the award. That order dated 27th November, 1998 is impugned in this revision application. 4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was ill and therefore he could not file the application within the period of six months. He invited my attention to the medical certificate, a copy of which is Annexed as Exh."E" to the petition, which shows that the petitioner was suffering from Hypertension from September, 1997 and was advised rest for 18 months. Provisions of section 5 of the Land Acquisition Act are not applicable for making a reference under section 18 of the Land Acquisition ..3.. Act. It has been so held that the Supreme Court in the following cases :- i. Officer on Special Duty i. Officer on Special Duty i. Officer on Special Duty (Land Acquisition) and another V/s. (Land Acquisition) and another V/s. (Land Acquisition) and another V/s. Shah Manilal Chandulal and ors., Shah Manilal Chandulal and ors., Shah Manilal Chandulal and ors., reported in (1996)9 Supreme Court reported in (1996)9 Supreme Court reported in (1996)9 Supreme Court Cases 414. Cases 414. Cases 414. And And And ii. State of Karnataka V/s. ii. State of Karnataka V/s. ii. State of Karnataka V/s. Laxuman, reported in (2005)8 Supreme Laxuman, reported in (2005)8 Supreme Laxuman, reported in (2005)8 Supreme Court Cases 709. Court Cases 709. Court Cases 709. 5. In view of this settled position of law the Land Acquisition Officer had no power to condone the delay and make a reference. He, therefore, rightly rejected the petitioner’s request for condonation of delay and making of a reference. 6. For these reasons the revision application is dismissed with no order as to costs. (D.G. KARNIK, J.) (D.G. KARNIK, J.) (D.G. KARNIK, J.)