Judgment :- 1. Petitioner challenges the order Ext. P4 passed by the respondent, the Special Tahsildar for Land Acquisition, Tellicherry. 2. Land belonging to the petitioner was acquired under the provisions of the Kerala Land Acquisition Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). Award was passed by the respondent on 18-3-1981. The petitioner would contend that he had filed an application on 24-4-1981 asking for reference to the competent court for decision on the amount of compensation. That application, it is alleged, was not taken up by the respondent and finally disposed of. Thereupon, he filed Ext. P3 petition on 25-4-1983 together with a copy of the petition which is stated to have been filed on 24-4-1981. The respondent by Ext. P4 order informed the petitioner that the petition dated 24-4-1981 was not received by him and that the application Ext. P3 was filed beyond the period prescribed under S.20 of the Act and so, the matter cannot be referred to the court. Hence, this original petition. 3. Respondent has filed a detailed counter affidavit contending that the award in the case was passed on 18-3-81, that the petitioner had never filed any application like Ext. P1 for referring the matter to the court and that no such application was received in his office. The petitioner had challenged the land acquisition proceedings in O.P. 874/81 before this court. The respondent did not tell the petitioner that his petition would be disposed of and the matter referred to court only after disposal of O.P. 874/81. The application filed on 25-4-1983 was belated by two years and no reference under S.20 of the Act can be made in pursuance to the same. Hence it is averred that the petitioner is not entitled to any relief in this petition. 4. The main argument advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the respondent had the discretion to condone the delay in filing the application under S.20 of the Act. Since that discretion has not been exercised by the officer in favour of the petitioner, it is contended that Ext. P4 has to be quashed. 4. The main argument advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the respondent had the discretion to condone the delay in filing the application under S.20 of the Act. Since that discretion has not been exercised by the officer in favour of the petitioner, it is contended that Ext. P4 has to be quashed. The question whether S.5 of the Limitation Act applies to an application under S.20 of the Act came up for consideration in Raman Pillai v. State of Kerala (1982 K.L.T. 507) The Division Bench took the view that S.5 of the Limitation Act does not apply to an application for reference under S.20 of the Act. I am bound by that decision. No other provision of law authorising the Land Acquisition Officer to exercise inherent jurisdiction to enlarge the time fixed under S.20 of the Act is brought to my notice either. 5. A person interested in the property acquired who has not accepted the award, by a written application can require the Collector to refer the matter for the determination of the court. That application should be filed within the period fixed by sub-clause (a) or (b) of Clause.2 of S.20 of the Act. If the application is filed within the period mentioned therein the Collector has to refer the matter to the court for its decision. Filing the application within the prescribed time is a condition laid in the section for making the reference to court, ie. an application within the specified time is a condition precedent for the Collector to refer the case to the court for its determination. If the person files an application within the said period fixed by statute, the Collector has no discretion to refuse to refer the matter to the court. Similarly, if the petition is not filed within the period the Collector has no jurisdiction to refer the matter for the decision of the court. In this view of the matter, the Collector has no jurisdiction to exercise any discretion in dealing with the application. 6. In the instant case, the petitioner alleges that an application contemplated by S.20 of the Act was filed on 24-4-1981. This statement is not supported by any evidence. The respondent in the counter affidavit has averred that no application dated 24-4-81 was filed by the petitioner asking for referring the case to the court. 6. In the instant case, the petitioner alleges that an application contemplated by S.20 of the Act was filed on 24-4-1981. This statement is not supported by any evidence. The respondent in the counter affidavit has averred that no application dated 24-4-81 was filed by the petitioner asking for referring the case to the court. In the absence of such an application within the period mentioned in S.20 of the Act the respondent could not make any reference to court. In such a situation this court cannot direct the respondent to refer the matter to court either. In this view, the petitioner is not entitled to any relief from this court. 7. Yet another argument advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is that the respondent ought to have afforded the petitioner an opportunity of being heard before disposing of Ext. P3 petition. As stated earlier, the Collector while exercising the powers under S.20 of the Act has no discretion to enlarge the period for filing the application. He is only discharging a statutory duty. The discharge of that duty depends on the filing of the application within the period. For the exercise of such a statutory function no notice need be issued to the petitioner. In this view, Ext. P4 is not open to challenge on the ground of violation of the principles of natural justice. Therefore, I do not find any merit in this argument advanced by the learned counsel. The result therefore is the O.P. fails and it is accordingly dismissed. However, I make no order as to costs. Dismissed.