P. R. GOKULAKRISHNAN, J. ( 1 ) RULE. Mr. Hava waives service of Rule on behalf of the respondents. ( 2 ) THIS Special Civil Application is filed for quashing and setting aside the order at Annexure C to the Special Civil Application and also to direct the respondent No. 2 in this petition to make a reference to the District Court as prayed for by the petitioner by issuing a suitable writ direction or order. This matter pertains to the Land Acquisition effected by respondent No. 2. In this matter the Award was passed as early as 26-6-1981. Notice under Sec. 12 (2) of the Land Acquisition Act was issued on 18-9-1981. The petitioner actually received copy of the award on 30-5-1985. Immediately thereafter the petitioner filed an application before the 2nd respondent requesting him to refer the matter under Sec. 18 of the Land Acquisition Act to the District Court. This application was filed on 30-7-1985. The 2nd respondent rejected this application as time-barred. While rejecting the application the 2nd respondent has taken into consideration the date of the award which is 26-6-1981 and the notice which is dated 18 and came to the conclusion that there is an inordinate delay in making the application. No doubt the application has to be made within 6 weeks as per the provisions of the Act. In the decision in the case of Rajat Hirabhai Motibhai and Ors. v. Deputy Collector Land Acquisition and Rehabilitation Panam Project Godhra and Ors. reported in 1985 (1) GLR 275 a bench of our High Court has clearly held that the notice in law is deemed to have been served only when the copy of the contents of the award is served on the party concerned. In this case copy of the award was served only on 30-5-1985. Hence according to this judgment limitation starts only from 30-5-1985. No doubt there is two weeks delay in filing the application by the petitioner for the purpose of directing the 2nd respondent to refer the matter under Sec. 18 to the District Court. In the decision in the case of Mohan Vasta v. State of Gujarat reported in 1985 GLH 199 : ( 1985 (1) GLR 293 ) it has been clearly held that Sec. 5 of the Limitation Act is applicable for an application for reference under Sec. 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. In the decision in the case of Mohan Vasta v. State of Gujarat reported in 1985 GLH 199 : ( 1985 (1) GLR 293 ) it has been clearly held that Sec. 5 of the Limitation Act is applicable for an application for reference under Sec. 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. In view of this specific observation made by the bench of our High Court in the above said decision there cannot be any difficulty for respondent No. 2 to condone the delay and refer the matter to the District Court under Section of the Act. In as much as there is only two weeks delay in this case we have examined ourselves the reasons for such a delay in preferring the application under Sec. 18. If only the 2nd respondent had understood the prevailing position of the law as to when exactly the limitation starts running against such a party he would have definitely condoned the delay of two weeks which has occurred in this case. We find that the petitioner is a poor agriculturist and has rushed up to the 2nd respondent for filing necessary application even though there is a delay of two weeks in doing so. The reasons given by the petitioner in his application filed before the 2nd respondent in our view sufficiently explains the delay of two weeks that has occurred in this case. We are satisfied that there is sufficient Explanation for such a delay of two weeks by the petitioner herein and as such following the decision referred above we direct the 2nd respondent to refer the matter to the District Court under Sec. 18 of the Land Acquisition Act within six weeks from this date. Rule is made absolute with the above said observations. There will be no order as to costs. Rule made absolute. .