IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION No 2291 of 1995 For Approval and Signature: Hon'ble MR.JUSTICE S.K.KESHOTE ============================================================ 1. Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgements? 2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? 3. Whether Their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgement? 4. Whether this case involves a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution of India, 1950 of any Order made thereunder? 5. Whether it is to be circulated to the Civil Judge? -------------------------------------------------------------- MALI SONAJI KHEMAJI Versus THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER -------------------------------------------------------------- Appearance: MR BN PATEL for the Petitioner MS HANSA B PUNANI, AGP for the Respondent -------------------------------------------------------------- CORAM : MR.JUSTICE S.K.KESHOTE Date of Decision: 29/03/2000 C.A.V.JUDGMENT #. Challenge has been made in this civil revision application by the petitioner to the order of the Special Land Acquisition Officer, Banaskantha at Palanpur dated 15.7.1994 under which the application of the petitioner under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 for making reference to the Civil Court was came to be rejected as barred by limitation. #. Facts which are not in dispute are to be briefly stated. In this case the Land Acquisition Officer has made an award on 25.5.1993. Notice of this award under section 12(2) of the Act aforesaid was sent to the petitioner and on receipt of the notice, he applied for the copy of the award which was admittedly made available to him on 5.10.1993. The application for reference has been made on 5.4.1994. This has not been made within six weeks from the date of knowing of the contents of the award and rightly it was not entertained as being barred by limitation. Reliance placed on the decision of this court by the learned counsel for the petitioner is of little help to the petitioner in this case. Facts of that case are clearly distinguishable from the facts of this case. #. In the result, this civil revision application fails and the same is dismissed. Rule discharged. Interim relief, if any, granted stands vacated. No order as to costs. ********* (pathan)