1 CRA 3/2005 abs IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 3 OF 2005 1. Khandu Namdeo Naikodi 2. Mahadeo Namdeo Naikodi .. Applicants V/s The Special Land Acquisition Officer No.22 .. Respondent Mr. Uday Warunjikar for the applicants. Ms. S.V. Sonawane, A.G.P. for the respondent. CORAM : D.G. KARNIK, J. DATE : 13TH JUNE 2011 ORAL JUDGMENT: 1. This revision application is directed against the order dated 12th April 2004 passed by the Special Land Acquisition Officer No. 22 (exercising the powers of the Collector) rejecting the application of the revision applicants for reference to be made to the District Court under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act (for short “the Act”). 2. The award in question was passed on 1st March 1994. An application for reference to the District Court under section 18 of the Act. was made on 16th June 1997. The application was 2 CRA 3/2005 rejected on the ground that it was barred by limitation. That order is impugned in the present revision application. 3. Since the revision applicants had disputed the service of a notice under section 12(2) of the Act, the respondent was directed to produce on record the material to show that the notice was so served. Mr. Ramdas Dadaram Khadtare, Special Land Acquisition Officer No. 22 has accordingly filed an affidavit in reply dated 28th February 2005 annexing thereto a photocopy of the register showing the service of notices in the land acquisition proceedings. Entries at serial nos.4 and 5 appearing at page nos.41 and 42 of the register annexed to the affidavit in reply show that the notice under section 12(2) of the Act was served on the revision applicants on 2nd April 1997. Last column of the register bears the signatures of applicant nos.1 and 2 indicating that the notices were served on them on 2nd April 1997. Proviso to sub-section(2) of section 18 of the Act says that the application for reference is required to be made within 6 weeks of the receipt of the notice of the Collector under section 12(2) of the Act. Since the notice was served in the year 1997, making of an application for reference in the year 2004 is clearly barred by limitation. The Collector, therefore, committed no error in dismissing the application as barred by limitation. 3 CRA 3/2005 There is no merit in the revision application which is hereby dismissed, but in the facts and circumstances of the case without any order as to costs. (D.G. KARNIK, J.)