Judgment :- The petitioner in W.P. 10931 of 1991 is the appellant in this writ appeal. The respondent in the writ petition is the respondent in this writ appeal. For the sake of convenience, we are, referring to the parties as per their nomenclature in the writ petition. 2. The petitioner came to this court, putting forth the prayer as follows:— “For the reasons set out in the accompanying affidavit it is prayed that this Honourable Court may be pleased to issue a writ of certiorarified mandamus or any other appropriate writ or directive in the nature of a writ calling for the records relating to R.O.C.A. 54784. dated 28.2.1991 on the file of the Special Tahsildar, (L.A.) Neighbourhood scheme, Tuticorin, (the respondent herein) and to quash the same and direct the respondent, to refer the dispute relating to S. No. 137/IA2 and 137/IB in Block I in Sankaraneri Village, Tuticorin Taluk, to Civil Court, under S. 18 of the Land Acquisition Act and to pass such further other order or orders that this Honourable court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case and thus render justice.” By the proceedings referred to in the prayer in the writ petition, there is a decline on the part of the respondent to make a reference under S. 18 of the Land Acquisition Act I of 1984, hereinafter referred to as the Act, on the ground of delay. The learned single Judge, who dealt with the writ petition, though adverted to the stand expressed on behalf of the petitioner, that no notice of the awards passed in the land, acquisition proceedings was served on the petitioner and she was unaware of the awards; yet chose not to accept it because the learned single Judge found that no such stand was expressed in the notice earlier issued by the petitioners counsel. In the view, the learned single Judge found that no such stand was expressed in the notice earlier issued by the petitioners. In this view, the learned single Judge dismissed the writ petition. This writ appeal is directed against the order of the learned single Judge. 3. Mr. In the view, the learned single Judge found that no such stand was expressed in the notice earlier issued by the petitioners. In this view, the learned single Judge dismissed the writ petition. This writ appeal is directed against the order of the learned single Judge. 3. Mr. S. Subbiah, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the awards under the Act were not made in the presence of the petitioner and the petitioner was not at all served with any notice of the awards under S. 12(2) of the Act and the knowledge of the awards came to the petitioner only immediately before the issuance of the notice by the petitioners counsel in February, 1991 and hence there could not be a decline to make a Reference under S. 18 of the Act, as done by the respondent on the ground of delay. Apart from the averments made in the original affidavit, an additional affidavit has also been pressed into service in this behalf of the learned counsel for the petitioner by taking out CMP. No. 15321 of 1991, which petition we have allowed today. Mr. M.A. Sadanand, learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondent, has obtained written instructions from the respondent. As per the written instructions which the learned Government, Pleader exposed to us, the admitted position is that notice under S. 12(2) of the Act was not served on the petitioner personally, and it is claimed that since the petitioner and her relatives were not residing in the village and their permanent addresses were not known by the villagers, the notice under S. 12(2) of the Act was recorded in the land of the petitioner. We are not prepared to accept this statement as sufficient with regard to service of the statutory notice. Once we eschew the case offered of the respondent with regard to service of notice as above, as not in conformity with the provisions of the statute, we find that the case of the petitioner that she came to know of the awards only immediately prior to the issuance of the notice by her counsel in February, 1991 deserves acceptance. We have not found a warrant to discredit this case of the petitioner. We have not found a warrant to discredit this case of the petitioner. It is well settled that where there is a failure to serve the notice under S. 12(2) of the Act, the date from which the time limit could run under S. 18(2) of the Act is only a date when the party actually or constructively came to know about the essential contents of the award. Accepting the case of the petitioner as above with regard to her knowledge about the awards, the petitioner is entitled to have a Reference as asked for by her and there is no justification on the part of the respondent to decline to make the Reference. We find that the learned single Judge could not approach this question from the above angle, because the case of the respondent, on the question of service of notice was not exposed before the learned single Judge, as done now before the learned Government Pleader on written instructions. When the question is approached from the above angle, and in the above background, the petitioner has to succeed. Accordingly, this writ appeal is allowed; the order of the learned single Judge in W.P. 10931 of 1991 is set aside and in that writ petition there will be a direction to the respondent to make a reference under S. 18 of the Act as prayed for to the proper forum within a period of eight weeks from the date of the receipt of a copy of this judgment of ours. The grant of the above relief is sufficient to serve the purpose of the petitioner. We make no order as to costs.