JUDGMENT : Das, C.J. - This application arises out of certain land acquisition proceeding under Central Act I of 1894. The Petitioner before us was one of the claimants for compensation in respect of certain lands which were under acquisition. He put forward his claim as early as on 23-8-48. His case is that he received no notice u/s 12(2) of the Act of the award which was passed on 13-9-49 and that he came to know about it only on 25-3-50 and that immediately thereafter he applied to the Land Acquisition Collector contesting the quantum of compensation. The Land Acquisition officer before receiving this application had sent up the proceedings byway of a reference u/s 30 of this Act to the District Court for apportionment of the compensation between the claimants after decision of the court. When the Petitioner approached the Land Acquisition Officer and the Collector of the District successively, alleging that he had no notice of the award and that he had therefore no opportunity to contest the quantum, he was told that the matter had gone out of their hands and that if necessary he may approach the District Judge, with whom the question apportionment was pending. The District Judge when applied to, informed him that he had no jurisdiction to go into the question of quantum, since the reference was only about apportionment of the compensation u/s 30. It is in these circumstances, that the Petitioner comes up for appropriate relief to this Court, on this application under Article 226 of the Constitution. 2. The records of the Land Acquisition Collector have been called for. The order sheet relating to the present acquisition proceedings show the following relevant information. On 20.8.49, the Land Acquisition Officer heard the parties and came to his own conclusions both on the question of quantum and on the question of competing claims and the same appears to have been approved probably by the Collector on 29-8.49. It appears from the endorsement on the order sheet that parties were informed about this on 30.8- 49. Thereafter on 10-9-49 there is an order to the following effect: Notice to parties for drawing up of the award. This has been endorsed by some person on 21-12-49 with a note "seen" and it is said that he was agent of the Petitioner. Thereafter on 10-9-49 there is an order to the following effect: Notice to parties for drawing up of the award. This has been endorsed by some person on 21-12-49 with a note "seen" and it is said that he was agent of the Petitioner. The award appears to have been drawn up u/s 11 of the Act and passed on 13-9-49, as appears from the next order in the order-sheet which is under date 13-9-49 and which shows the following note: Parties absent, award drawn up u/s 11 of the Act I of 1894. Inform parties con cared "Now it is admitted on behalf of the Land Acquisition officer, that no fresh notice of the award dated 13-9-49 has at all been given to the parties subsequent to this date. It is however contended that since the parties had already noticed on 30-8-49 of the confirmed proposal made by the officer and also of the fact that the award was going to be drawn up on 13-9-49 absence of further notice could not have caused prejudice. Section 12(2) however is mandatory in its requirement as regards the notice contemplated thereby, Sub-section (1) of Section 12 provides for the filing of the award in the Collector's office and sub-section (2) provides that "The Collector shall give immediate notice of his award to such of the persons interested as are not present personally or by their representative when the award is made". The note in the order sheet shows that the award u/s 11 was made only on 13-9-49 and that none of the parties were present at the time. The fact that the Petitioner or his agent had knowledge of the confirmed proposal of the Land Acquisition Officer or notice that the award was going to be filed, does not obviate the necessity for the fresh notice required about the making of the award. A further notice u/s 12(2) carries with it certain further legal consequences and hence cannot be omitted or dispensed with. We are therefore clearly of opinion that there has been a violation of a mandatory statutory provision which has affected the rights of the Petitioner and that a direction must issue to the appropriate authority to carry out that provision now and follow it up from that stage. 3. We are therefore clearly of opinion that there has been a violation of a mandatory statutory provision which has affected the rights of the Petitioner and that a direction must issue to the appropriate authority to carry out that provision now and follow it up from that stage. 3. The learned Government Advocate has drawn our attention to the provisions u/s 18 of the Act which requires that an objection as regards the quantum of compensation is to be filed within is months from the date of the Collector's award in the case. It has been pointed out that the objection vas filed by the Petitioner only on 25-3-50, while the award was pronounced on 13.9.49 and that it was therefore six months provided u/s 18(2)(b). It is suggested that this six months period is absolute irrespective of the question whether notice was issued or received, and that therefore any direction to give notice would be futile. This contention however cannot be accepted. The provision to Section 18 is as follows: 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 u/s 12 sub-section (2) or within six months from the date of the Collector award whichever period shall first expire. The second proviso is meant to give an opportunity for making such application only in cases where the notice was issued, but when for one reason or other it was not received. This cannot be construed as placing an absolute bar at the end of six months even though the statutory obligation of issuing the notice u/s 12(2) has not been discharged by the Land Acquisition Officer. We therefore think that the proper course to be adopted in the circumstances, is to direct the Land Acquisition officer to issue notice u/s 12(2) of the Act now, about the filing of the award so that the Petitioner may get the opportunity u/s 18(1) to file his objection as to the quantum of compensation and require the Collector to make a reference to court as regards the same j and we direct accordingly. 4. 4. The costs of this application must be paid by the Government in view of the fact that this application to us has been occasioned by the default of the officer concerned in not observing the statutory requirements of the Act. 5. We assess the hearing fee at Rs. 100/- Panigrahi, J. 6. I agree. 7. Appeal allowed. Final Result : Allowed