JUDGMENT - V.V. KAMAT, J.:---In this revision application also the Spl. Land Acquisition Officer has refused to make a reference, and accordingly intimated the petitioner by the impugned order dated 11-3-93. Since all the dates are not only stated in the impugned order but also stated in the petition on solemn affirmation, keeping this petition on the file of this Court would be unnecessary in the interest of justice. Because the reference is denied, the application is taken up on the basis of grant of rule after hearing the learned Counsel and the parties. 2. In three revision applications i.e. C.R.A. Nos. 337/91, 338/91 (yesterday) and 1185/93 (decided in the earlier matter) observations in this context are already made. Repetitions are not necessary. The reasoning is adopted. 3. On facts, the date of award is 31-3-92. Notice u/s. 12(2) of the Land Acquisition Act is served on 5-4-92. It appears thereafter, the petitioner made an application for certified copy of the Award on 4-7-92. However, before the certified copy could be received, which was received on 25-11-92, an application for making reference under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act is made on 12-8-92. The said application is rejected holding that it ought to have been made within 6 weeks from 5-4-92 and therefore, barred by 89 days. 4. U/s. 18(2) (Clauses A and B), there are three categories, which are as follows:-- (i) when the claimant is present, when the award is made, then application is to be made within 6 weeks; (ii) when the claimant gets notice u/s. 12(2) of the Act, then also within six weeks; and (iii) in any other case, within 6 months from the date of award. It is specified thereafter that with regard to these periods, it is to be made within the periods whichever shall first expire. Factually, there is no dispute that the application is made within six months from the date of the notice u/s. 12(2). 5. It is already observed that the approach of the Court with reference to the Law of Limitation related to the date of knowledge and it is already observed that the date of knowledge has to be appreciated on the basis of awareness of the legal right. 5. It is already observed that the approach of the Court with reference to the Law of Limitation related to the date of knowledge and it is already observed that the date of knowledge has to be appreciated on the basis of awareness of the legal right. The present petitioner is an old man of 65 years and a resident of village in Amravati district, which is available from the very title of the petition and the location of the land itself. In accordance with the reasoning, on the basis of which earlier matters are decided, the petitioner must be given a right of approaching the reference Court. In this context, it will not be out of place to refer to certain sterring situation. The amount claimed before the Land Acquisition Officer is 5,50,000/- as compensation; Rs. 1,00,000/- towards well and Rs. 2,00,000/- relating to expenses for development, totalling to Rs. 8,50,000/-, which is also the amount claimed in the application for reference. The amount that is awarded by the respondent No. 2 is Rs. 1,33,533/- It is for this reason also, the claimant will be a loser to the extent of Rs. 7,13,533 and, therefore, justice demands that he should be given a right of approaching the reference Court. 6. For the above reasons, rule is made absolute. Impugned order dated 11-3-93 gets quashed and set aside and the respondent No. 2 is directed to forward the application as reference u/s. 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. In the above circumstances, there shall be no order as to costs. Rule made absolute.