JUDGMENT K.N. Singh, J. - This petition is directed against the order of the Special Land Acquisition Officer, Ghaziabad, dated 21-3-73 rejecting the petitioners' applications. 2. The petitioners' land situate in village Nasirpur, Pargana Loni, Tahsil Ghaziabad District Ghaziabad, was the subject matter of acquisition proceedings taken by the State Government for acquiring land for the Planned Development of the area by providing Master Plan Read by the Improvement Trust, Ghaziabad. It appears that the petitioners did not file any objection before the Land Acquisition Officer claiming compensation, instead Richhpal Das alias Ram Richhpal s/o. L. Bhikkan Lal filed objection in the proceedings under Section 9 of the Land Acquisition Act, as Ram Richhpal was claiming right to the land. The petitioners filed a suit under Section 209 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act (Act No. 1 of 1956) in the Court of Assistant Collector, First Class, Ghaziabad, for declaration and the possession of the plots in suit. The suit was dismissed by the trial Court but the appellate Court decreed the suit. Ram Richhpal filed a second appeal No. 1501 of 1980 in the High Court. During he pendency of these proceedings the land was acquired for the Planned Development of the area by the Improvement Trust, Ghaziabad. The second appeal filed by Ram Richhpal was ultimately dismissed by this Court and the decree of the appellate Court was upheld as a result of which the petitioners' claim to the land stood decreed. On 9-3-1970 the petitioners filed an application before the Land Acquisition Officer to the effect that they were Bhumidhars of the disputed land and that compensation should he paid to them and not to Ram Richhpal. The Special Land Acquisition Officer, however, did not issue any notice to the petitioners nor heard them while determining compensation. The Special Land Acquisition Officer, delivered the award on 10th June, 1970. The award was not delivered in the petitioners' come to know of the award in November, 1970. They filed an application before the Special Land Acquisition Officer on 19-11-70 under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act requesting him to make a reference to the District Judge. The Special Land Acquisition Officer rejected the petitioners' application for reference on 31-3-73 on the ground that it was barred by time. Aggrieved, the petitioners have filed this petition. 3. They filed an application before the Special Land Acquisition Officer on 19-11-70 under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act requesting him to make a reference to the District Judge. The Special Land Acquisition Officer rejected the petitioners' application for reference on 31-3-73 on the ground that it was barred by time. Aggrieved, the petitioners have filed this petition. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners urged that since no notice of the award was served on the petitioners and as the award was not delivered in their presence the application made by them for making the reference under Section 10 of the Land Acquisition Act was well within time and the Special Land Acquisition Officer committed patent error of law in rejecting the case. 4. The petitioners have asserted in para 16 of the petition that they came to know of the award only in November, 1970, and immediately thereafter they filed an application for reference on 19-11-1970. They have further stated that the award was not delivered in their presence. These averments as contained in the writ petition are not disputed as no counter affidavit has been filed. The uncontroverted fact show that the petitioners came to know of the award only in November, 1970, and immediately thereafter they filed application for reference under Section 18 of the Act on 19-11-70. In Harish Chandra v. Dy. Land Acquisition Officer, AIR 1961, Supreme Court, 1500, it was held that "the expression" the date of the award used in proviso (b) to Section 18 (2) of the Act must mean the date when the award is either communicated to the party or is known by him either actually or constructively." Since no notice of the award was given to the petitioners as required under Section 18 (2) of the Act, it was only in November, 1970, that they received information about the making of the award. The petitioners thereupon filed application on 19-11-70 well within time as contemplated by Proviso (b) to Section 18 (2) of the Act. The Special Land Acquisition Officer committed patent error in coming to the conclusion that the application made by the petitioners was barred by time. 5. We, accordingly, allow the petitions and quash the order of the Special Land Acquisition Officer dated 21-3-73 and we further direct the Special Land Acquisition Officer to consider the petitioners' application for making reference in accordance with law.