JUDGMENT D.C. Mathur, J. - This is a First Appeal by the Municipal Board, now the Nagar Mahapalika, Varanasi, against the order of the Additional District Judge, Varanasi, dismissing its claim to the compensation money with respect to two biswas land which it had purchased in an auction sale held on 7-9-1942 for which sale certificate was issued on 20-12-1943. The learned District judge decided all the issues except one in favour of the Nagar Mahapalika, but dismissed the claim because, in his opinion, the application: for making reference to the Court was not wide within the. prescribed period. 2. Before expressing any, opinion on the point in issue it may here be mentioned. to avoid any controversy,in future, that the quantum of compensation awarded for the disputed land and house has not been challenged by any of the parties. The respondents, Hem Chandra Bhattacharya and two others, apparently submitted to the award and made no application for reference to the Court and the Nagar Mahapalika merely claims a share in the compensation money given under the award. Hence, the compensation of Rs. 78,000/- cannot be enhanced and if the claim of the Nagar Mahapalika is accepted, it would be able to get a part of the compensation money pertaining to 2 biswas land, and not the building. The learned District judge did not apportion the compensation money between the building and the land, and consequently, if the application for making reference to the Court is held to have been made within time, remand of the case shall be necessary so that there may be proper, apportionment and thereafter if the claim of the Nagar Mahapalika is accepted, it may be awarded proportionate compensation pertaining to two biswas land. 3. As the case is being remanded it shall be proper to leave the issue of ownership of the two biswas land open. The finding of the District judge with regard to the well shall be final considering that in the sale certificate the exact location of the land auctioned has not been given, nor has reference been made to the existence of a well. 4. Section 11 (3) of the U. P. Land Acquisition (Rehabilitation of Refugees) Act, 1948 (to be referred hereinafter as the Act) governs an application for disputing the compensation determined by the Compensation Officer under sub- sec. 4. Section 11 (3) of the U. P. Land Acquisition (Rehabilitation of Refugees) Act, 1948 (to be referred hereinafter as the Act) governs an application for disputing the compensation determined by the Compensation Officer under sub- sec. (1) and for the making of a reference to the Court. This Section 11 (3) run as below : "Where any person aggrieved by an award made under sub-sec. (2) makes an application within the period prescribed requiring the matter to be referred to the Court, the Compensation Officer shall refer it to the decision of the Court having jurisdiction." The rule governing the application for reference to the Court is contained in Rule 11 of the U. P. Land Acquisition (Rehabilitation of Refugees) Rules, 1948 (to be referred hereinafter as the Rules) , which runs as below. "A person interested who has not accepted the officer mentioned in Rule 7 may apply to the Compensation Officer, for reference to the District Court under sub-sec. (4) of Sec, 11 and thereupon the Compensation Officer shall forward the application to the District Court. with full report containing as nearly as may be, all the particulars mentioned in Rules 12 and 13, provided that every such application shall be made : (a) if the person making it was present or represented before the. Compensation Officer at the time when he made his offer of compensation, within six weeks from the date of such offer, and (b) in other cases, within six weeks of receipt of notice from the Compensation Officer under Rule 7". Under Rule 7 thereof the Collector or the Compensation Officer has to give immediate notice of the amount of compensation determined by him under Rule 6 in form VII (R.F.G.), Appendix G. Form VII makes it clear that the notice is to be given to specified persons and not generally to persons interested. Hence clause (b) of Rule 11 shall apply to only,those persons to whom the requisite notice has been given and naturally, on whom the notice has been served. It cannot apply to a person to whom no notice was given. The use of the word ,,receipt" in clause (b) of Rule 11 also makes it clear that there must be personal service of the notice and a mere general notice shall not serve the purpose. 5. Sub-sec. It cannot apply to a person to whom no notice was given. The use of the word ,,receipt" in clause (b) of Rule 11 also makes it clear that there must be personal service of the notice and a mere general notice shall not serve the purpose. 5. Sub-sec. (3) of Section 11 of the Act is complete by itself, unlike sub-sec. (2) and (4) thereof; and the period for making an application for referring the matter to the Court shall be determined by the Rules only i.e. Rule 11 thereof and not by the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, even if not inconsistent with the provisions of the Act and the Rules. 6. It shall be found that in Sec. I S of the Land Acquisition Act three separate periods of limitations are prescribed one, for a person who was present or was represented at the time of the making of the award: the other for a person on whom the notice under Section 12 (2) of that Act had been served; and the third, for the rest. It is by virtue of the provisions of Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act that no application for making a reference to the District Court can be entertained on the expiry of six months from the date of the award. However, in Rule 11 of the Rules the third period of limitation has not been provided, and hence an application for making a reference to the Court can be made any time by a person not present or represented at the time of the making of the award or on whom no notice of award was served. The appellant, Nagar Mahapalika, falls in this category and its application for making a reference to the Court could be entertained even after six weeks of the supposed knowledge of the award. As the Court of law cannot add words to an enactment or rules having the force of law, there shall be no prescribed period for persons falling in the third category. The present application of the Nagar Mahapalika under Section 11 (3) of the Act was thus not barred by limitation and could not be rejected on this ground. 7. As the Court of law cannot add words to an enactment or rules having the force of law, there shall be no prescribed period for persons falling in the third category. The present application of the Nagar Mahapalika under Section 11 (3) of the Act was thus not barred by limitation and could not be rejected on this ground. 7. The next point contended by the learned advocate for respondents 2 to 4 is that a person who did not put forward any claim before the Compensation Officer and took no interest till the making of an application for reference to the Court had no right to make such an application. It is suggested that the only remedy available to him is to institute a suit to establish his claim to a part of the compensation money. This contention stands repelled by Section 13 of the Act. Sub-sec. (1) thereof clearly provides that "no order made in exercise of any power conferred by or tinder this Act shall be called in question in any court except as provided in this Act." It is after the determination of the compensation tinder Sec. I1 (1) that the Compensation Officer makes an award. The determination of the compensation and the making of the award are two of the orders which can be passed in exercise of the power conferred by or tinder the Act. When the award of Compensation Officer cannot be challenged except by way of reference under Section 11 (3) of the Act, no one can institute a separate suit for apportionment of the compensation money. When no separate suit lies, the Courts of law shall be justified to strictly construe the provisions of the enactment. Further, any provision depriving a person of his property of the corresponding compensation money must be construed strictly, in fact, a liberal interpretation must be given. Keeping all these factors in mind, none of the provisions of the Act can amount to disentitling a persons not appearing before the Compensation Officer from making an application under Section 11 (3) of the Act. 8. An application under Section 11 (3) of the Act can be made by a person aggrieved by an award. The sub-section nowhere provides that the person aggrieved by the award must be one who had put in appearance before the Compensation Officer. 8. An application under Section 11 (3) of the Act can be made by a person aggrieved by an award. The sub-section nowhere provides that the person aggrieved by the award must be one who had put in appearance before the Compensation Officer. It is a settled rule of interpretation of statutes that the provisions thereof must be construed as they are, and it cannot ordinarily be assumed that there exists a drafting error, the draftsman having omitted certain words. Hence the expression "person aggrieved" must be given a wider meaning. Rule 1 I of the Rules corresponds to Section 11 (3) of the Act which empowers "a person interested who has not accepted the offer" to make the application under Section 11 (3). The Nagar Mahapalika was not accepting the offer contained in the award and if interested, could make an application under Section 11 (3). A rule framed under the rule making power cannot go beyond the scope of the enactment and, consequently, if it were possible to give any other interpretation to Rule 11, it would be repugnant to the provisions of Section 11 (3) of the Act and hence shall be invalid. 9. To sum up, the Nagar Mahapalika could make an application under Section 11 (3) of the Act even though it had. not put in appearance before the Compensation Officer, nor had the Compensation Officer awarded any compensation to it. The Nagar Mahapalika was admittedly not present at the time of the making of the award and no notice was served upon it. Hence the present application under Section 11 (3) of the Act, made after more than six weeks of the making of the award, was maintainable. 10. The First Appeal is hereby allowed and the order and the decree of the Additional District judge are set aside. At the same time the reference is remanded for a fresh hearing on points not finally decided by this Court. Costs of this Court shall abide the final decision of the reference.