1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION 160 OF 2008 SB @ Gulabrao S/o.Balbhimrao Deshmukh, and another PETITIONERS VERSUS The State of Maharashtra and another RESPONDENTS Mr.S.V.Gangapurwala, advocate for petitioners. Mr.K.B.Chaudhary, advocate for respondent no.1. Mr.C.V.Darurkar, h/f. Mr.S.V.Chillarge, advocate for respondent no.2 (CORAM : A.V.POTDAR, J.) DATE : 16/07/2009 PER COURT : 1. The present revision application is filed u/s. 115 of C.P.C. by which the applicants/petitioners have challenged the order dated 16/01/2007 passed by the first respondent by which the Special Land Acquisition Officer has refused to entertain the land reference preferred by the present petitioners u/s. 18 of The Land Acquisition Act, 1894. On last occasion, directions were given to learned AGP to keep the concern officer present from the office of Special Land Acquisition Officer. As per these directions, today Shri.A.F.Ansari, Assistant Town Planning Officer, working in the office of Special Land 2 Acquisition Officer,(Special Unit), Aurangabad is present in the Court alongwith the original record (the file containing the original record). It is not under dispute that the notice u/s. 12(2) of The Land Acquisition Act was served on the petitioners on 19/04/2006 which is also evident from the copy of the notice find in the file today brought before the Court by the Officer present in the Court. It is also not under dispute that reference u/s. 18 of The Land Acquisition Act was filed in the office of S.L.A.O. on 27/11/2007. Admittedly, on arithmetical calculation of these dates, since the notice u/s. 12(2) of The Land Acquisition Act was served on the petitioners, the reference filed is not within the period of 42 days or within 6 weeks from the date of the award. Learned advocate appearing for the petitioners applicants tried to place reliance on the judgment reported in 2004(4) Mh.L.J. 216, in the matter of Govind Kanu Madhavi, deceased, through LR’s versus Special Land Acquisition Officer, Panvel. Page 216 wherein it is observed in para no.6 that after service of notice, if the claimant applicant has applied for the certified copies of the award, then the award while calculating the days to obtain the certified copies within which the reference to be filed before the Collector then those days required to obtain certified copies of the documents to be excluded. No specific dates are mentioned in the body of the civil revision application as to when the application was filed to obtain the certified copies of the award and as to when the certified copies were received, as these days to be excluded as per the submissions of the advocate appearing for the revision applicants . On perusal of the file, I find the application 3 submitted by the first revision applicant to obtain the certified copies of the award, this application is dated 30/10/2006, That means, the application to obtain the certified copies was filed after the period of 6 months. Then the fact is clear neither the reference was filed within the period of limitation nor the application was filed to obtain the certified copies of the award also within the period of limitation even if the ratio as laid down in para no.6 of the judgment cited to be accepted. In the premise, the case of the revision applicant do not cover within the observations of para no.6 of the judgment cited, and no fault is find in the order under challenge in which it is held that the reference was not filed within the stipulated period of limitation, hence the reference was rejected at that stage only. Thus the civil revision application is devoid of any merit and to be dismissed in limine with no order as to costs. The original record produced is returned to the Officer from the office of Special Land Acquisition Officer (Special Unit) Aurangabad. (A.V.POTDAR, J.) khs/JULY 2009/cra160.08