1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA WRIT PETITION NO. 357 OF 2004 1. Smt. Maya Arjun Shirodkar w/o Late Arjun Shankar Naik) 2. Shri Chandan Arjun Naik Shirodkar 3. Shri Sohan Arjun Naik Shirodkar Registered Address: H.No. 421, Bhedshewada, Talauli, Ponda Goa. ... Petitioners versus 1. Chief Secretary, State of Goa, Secretariat, Panaji-Goa. 2. Dy. Collector(Land Acquisition), Office of Collectorate, North Goa, Panaji. ... Respondents Mr. Nigel Costa Frias, Advocate for the Petitioners. Mr. Vivek Rodrigues, Additional Government Advocate for the Respondents. CORAM : SWATANTER KUMAR, C.J. & N. A. BRITTO, J. DATE : 18TH FEBRUARY, 2009. ORAL JUDGMENT The Petitioners herein moved an application under Section 18 2 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894(hereinafter referred to as the Act, for short) before the Collector praying for reference to the Court of competent jurisdiction. This application came to be dismissed by Order of the Collector dated 9-7-2003. The application was rejected on the plea of limitation. 2. It is a settled principle of law that once the petition is barred by time neither the Collector nor the Court has jurisdiction to extend the time. The short question that arises in the present petition is whether actually the Petitioners were served with notice in accordance with law and the petition consequently was barred by time or not. It is not in dispute before us that at the time the Collector passed the award, the Petitioners were not present. Thereafter notice under Section 12(2) of the said Act is stated to have been sent to one Arjun Naik, husband of the Petitioner No.1. A notice was sent on 8-3-2002 while the said Arjun Naik died on 28-6-1995. As such the issuance of the notice against a deceased person would be ineffective in law and cannot entail the consequence of law, much less to be barred by time. 3. Learned Counsel for the Petitioners relied on a Judgment of the Supreme Court reported in Parsottambhai Maganbhai Patel and others v. State of Gujarat and another(AIR 2005 SC 3464). 4. In these circumstances, we have no hesitation to set aside the order passed by the Collector. Consequently, this petition is allowed. Rule made 3 absolute. The order of the Collector is set aside and the matter is remanded to the Collector to proceed further in accordance with law. No order as to costs. The order is obviously without prejudice to the rights of the parties which they may agitate in accordance with law. CHIEF JUSTICE JUDGE RD