Judgment :- 1. This an application for a writ of mandamus to direct the respondents to refer Award No. 117 of 1978 under S.20 of the Kerala Land Acquisition Act. The petitioner died on 5-9-1982 subsequent to the filing of this O. P. and this Court by order in C.M.P. No. 23536/82 allowed the application for impleading the legal representatives being the wife and three daughters of the deceased as additional petitioners 2 to 5. The petitioner had filed bis application for reference on 16-6-1978 (See Ext. P2). The award had been made as early as 25-4-1978 and the notice of the award under S.12(2) was purported to have been served on the petitioner's wife on 28-4-1978. Although the petitioner's application for reference was not answered by the respondents, it is now stated in the counter-affidavit that the application was rejected on the ground of time-bar. According to them it was filed outside the period of six weeks since notice had been served on the petitioner's wife. According to the petitioner no proper notice had been served in respect of the award and therefore a reference application filed within six months from the date of the award, viz., 25-4-1978, was within time. 2. The question is whether the respondents are right in contending that the application dated 16-6-1978 was time barred. 3. The petitioner's counsel Shri N. Venkatarama Iyer, rightly refers to S.49 and contends that notice served on the wife was not a proper notice and therefore the relevant provision applicable in this case is the last part of clause (b) of the proviso to sub-section (2) of S.20. 4. The respondents have no case that the petitioner was present or represented before the concerned officer at the time when the officer made the award. The respondents have also no case that any notice had been served on the petitioner personally or upon any adult male member of the family or that a copy of it had been affixed in the manner stipulated under S.49. The sole case of the respondents is that notice has been served upon the wife of the petitioner. 5. S.12(2) says: "The Collector shall give immediate notice of his award to such of the persons interested as are not present personally or by their representatives when the award is made." S. 20 provides: "20. The sole case of the respondents is that notice has been served upon the wife of the petitioner. 5. S.12(2) says: "The Collector shall give immediate notice of his award to such of the persons interested as are not present personally or by their representatives when the award is made." S. 20 provides: "20. Reference to court: - [1] [2] 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 under sub-section [2] of S.12 or within six months from the date of the Collector's award, whichever period shall first expire." 6. In so far as the petitioner was not present or represented before the concerned officer at the time when the award was made, the application for reference ought to be made either within six weeks of the receipt of the notice from the Collector under S.12(2) or within six months from the date of the award. The question is whether the notice was issued to the petitioner in the manner provided under S.49. This section reads: "49. Service of notices. [1] [2] Whenever it may be practicable, the service of the notice shall be made on the person thereto named. The question is whether the notice was issued to the petitioner in the manner provided under S.49. This section reads: "49. Service of notices. [1] [2] Whenever it may be practicable, the service of the notice shall be made on the person thereto named. [3] When such person cannot be found, the service may be made on any adult male member of his family residing with him, and if no such adult male member can be found, the notice may be served, by fixing 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 officer aforesaid or of the Collector or in the court-house, and also in some conspicuous part of the land to be acquired: Provided that if the Collector or judge shall so direct, a notice may be sent by registered post in a letter addressed to the person named there in at his last known residence, address or place of business, and service of it may be proved by the production of the addressee's receipt." The section leaves no doubt that service made on a female member of the family is not a service effected in terms of the section. The section undoubtedly makes a discrimination in favour of the male members. The section was apparently drafted on the basis of an identical provision under the Central Land Acquisition Act which was an enactment of the last century. The principle adopted at a time when the discrimination between sexes had not occurred to the draftsmen as unjust was unfortunately continued without question in the recent legislation enacted in the State. That it had violated the fundamental constitutional mandate to observe equality between sexes bad apparently not occurred to the draftsmen of the State Act. Be that as it may, the section itself being not under challenge, the provision has to be understood as it really is. That being the position, the notice served on the wife was not notice served in terms of the section, and knowledge of the wife was not knowledge of the husband; and therefore the husband is entitled to the longer period of time provided under clause (b) of the proviso to S.20(2), that is, six months from the date of the award. That being so, the application dated 16-6-1978, which was admittedly received by the respondents on the very same date, for reference of the matter arising in an award dated 25-4-1978 was well within time. It is so declared. The respondents are accordingly directed to refer the matter without further delay. The O. P. is allowed in the above terms. The parties will bear their costs.