Judgment :- 1. This is an appeal by the petitioner in O. P. No. 728 of 1960 a petition under Art.226 of the Constitution against the rejection of that petition. The prayer in the petition pressed before us is for: "a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ, direction or order, to the 3rd respondent, The Deputy Collector (Land Acquisition), Trivandrum to refer L. A. Cases Nos. 407,409 and 410 of 1958 on his file to the District Court of Trivandrum under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act (XI of 1089), etc., as prayed for by the petitioner in his petition dated 2 31959 inclusive of all necessary consequential directions." 2. The petition dated 2 31959 was filed by the petitioner's wife. It was dismissed on the ground that it was barred by limitation. There is no doubt that it was barred as far as she was concerned. 3. The petitioner and his wife were co-owners of the properties acquired by the State. The questions for consideration are: (1) Can the petition filed by the petitioner's wife on 2 31959 be construed as an application for reference by the petitioner as well ? and (2) If it can be so considered, can that petition, as far as the petitioner is concerned, be treated as barred by limitation ? 4. Sub section (2) of S.12 of the Travancore Land Acquisition Act, 1089, provides: "The Division Peishkar shall give immediate notice of the award to such of the persons interested as are not present personally or by their representatives when the award is made." The petitioner was all along a member of the Indian Air Force Squadron Leader serving outside the State. The notice to the petitioner was served on 22 111958 not on him, but on his wife. 5. S.40 of the Travancore Land Acquisition Act, 1089, deals with service of notice. The notice to the petitioner was served on 22 111958 not on him, but on his wife. 5. S.40 of the Travancore Land Acquisition Act, 1089, deals with service of notice. Sub section (2) of that section provides that: "whenever it may be practicable, the service of the notice shall be made on the person therein named" and sub-section (3) (omitting the proviso thereto which is not material): "When such person cannot be found, the service may be made on any auduk male member of his family residing with him; and, if no such adult male member can be found, the notice may be served by filing the copy on the outer door of the house in which the person therein named ordinarily dwells or carries on business, or by fixing a copy thereof in some conspicuous place in the office of the Division Peishkar and also in some conspicuous part of the land to be acquired." The service of the notice to the petitioner, as already stated, was made on his wife, and as she cannot be considered as an "adult male member of his family" as required by sub-section (3) the notice served on his wife on 22 111958 cannot be considered as having been duly served on the petitioner. 6. The application for reference in a case like the one before us should be filed under the second proviso to S.18 (2) (b) of the Act "within two months of the receipt of the notice from the Division Peishkar under S.12, Subsection (2), or within six months from the date of the Division Peishkar's award, which ever period shall first expire". The expression "from the date of the Collector's award" occurring in the corresponding provision of the Indian Land Acquisition Act, 1894, came up for consideration in AIR. 1961 SC. 1500. The Supreme Court said: "The knowledge of the party affected by the award, either actual or constructive, being an essential requirement of fait play and natural justice the expression ‘the date of the award used in the proviso must mean the date when the award is either communicated to the party or is known by him either actually or constructively. The Supreme Court said: "The knowledge of the party affected by the award, either actual or constructive, being an essential requirement of fait play and natural justice the expression ‘the date of the award used in the proviso must mean the date when the award is either communicated to the party or is known by him either actually or constructively. In our opinion, therefore, it would be unreasonable to construe the words 'from the date of the Collector's award' used in the proviso to S.18 in a literal or mechanical away."; "Where the rights of a person are affected by any order and limitation is prescribed for the enforcement of the remedy by the person aggrieved against the said order by reference to the making of the said order, the making of the order must mean either actual or constructive communication of the said order to the party concerned." 7. There is nothing on record to show that the petitioner was aware of the award prior to 2-3-1959. The real hurdle in his way is the fact that it is impossible to construe the petition filed by his wife on 2 3 1959 as a petition filed by him as well. The wording of the petition will not sustain such a conclusion. 8. The petition filed by the petitioner's advocate on 2112 1959 was apparently for a review of the order rejecting the petition dated 2 3 1959 and requires no separate consideration. Even if it is treated as a fresh application for a reference on behalf of the petitioner, it will be of no avail as it was filed over six months after 2 3 1959, the date on which the petitioner's counsel filed a petition for drawing, under protest, the amount awarded and on which date, at any rate, the petitioner should be deemed to have had knowledge of the making of the award. 9. It follows that this appeal has to be dismissed and we do so. In the circumstances of the case, however, there shall be no order as to costs. 10. In the view we have taken it is unnecessary to consider the other contentions raised by the learned Government Pleader for example, the contention that the O. P. should have been dismissed on the ground of delay and they are not dealt with in this judgment. Dismissed.