1 WP 1194 OF 1993 vks IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 1194 OF 1993 Ramesh Marutrao Jadhav .. Petitioner. -versus The State of Maharashtra and anr .. Respondents. Mr. Mandar Soman i/b T.D. Deshmukh, for the Petitioner Mr. R.M. Patne, AGP for respondent Nos 1 to 3. CORAM: RANJIT MORE, J. DATED: 28th April, 2011 P.C. 1. Not on board. By consent of the learned counsel, taken on board as short controversy is involved. 2. The petition is taken up for final hearing. 3. By the impugned order, the petitioner challenged the impugned order passed by Respondent No.3 Special Land Acquisition Officer, thereby his application under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1984 (for sake of convenience called as “the said Act”), came to be rejected on the ground that the same is not within limitation. Following dates are relevant for the purpose to see whether the petitioner’s application under Section 18 is within limitation or not. i) The award was passed on 3l.01.1993. ii) Notice under Section 12 (2) of the Land Acquisition Act, was issued to the petitioner on 2 WP 1194 OF 1993 13.3.1991. iii) The same was received by the petitioner on 15.3.1991. iv) The Application is filed under Section 18 on 30.4.1991. 4. Section 18(2) of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 reads as follows : (2)The application shall state the grounds on which objection to the award is taken. Provided that every such application shall be made. (a) if the person making it was present or represented before the Collector at the time when he made his award, within six weeks from the date of the Collector's award. (b) in other cases, within six weeks of the receipt of the notice from the Collector under section 12, sub section (2) or within six months from the date of the Collector’s award, whichever period shall first expire. 5. Admittedly the petitioner was not present when the award was made by the Collector and therefore clause (a) of of sub section (2) of Section 18, has no application in the present case. Sub section (b) of section 18(2) makes it mandatory to the petitioner to file Reference under Section 18, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of notice under Section 12(2) or within six months from the date of the Collector’s award, whichever period shall first expire. 6. In the present case admittedly petitioner received 3 WP 1194 OF 1993 notice under Section 12(2) of the said Act on 15th March, 1991. Thus the period of limitation, therefore, started from 16th March, 1991. Period of six weeks expired on 27th April, 1991. 7. The Petitioner, ought to have filed Reference on or before 28.4.1991. However, he filed reference on 30th April, 1991. Thus 2 days delay is occurred. It is now well settled principle that the Collector is not Civil Court. Section 5 of the Limitation Act, does not apply to the above proceeding pending before Collector. There is no provision in the Land Acquisition Act, for extension of time and therefore, Collector cannot extend time even if there are genuine and sufficient grounds for condonation of delay. Reference can be made to the decision of Apex Court in case of Bhagwan Das and ors -vs- State of Uttar Pradesh and ors (2010), 3 Supreme Court Cases 545. 8. That apart, sub section 3 is added by the Maharashtra Amendment to section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. In view of the same revision is maintainable in the High Court against order passed under Section 18. The petitioner inspite of availability of that remedy approached this High Court by way of writ petition. Taking into consideration overall circumstances, I do not find any error so as to enable me to entertain in this petition under Article 227 of the 4 WP 1194 OF 1993 Constitution of India. Petition accordingly is dismissed. (RANJIT MORE, J.)