JUDGMENT In this writ petition, the petitioners, who were the owners of a promises which was acquired under Land Acquisition proceeding have challenged the order passed by the 2nd Land Acquisition Collector, Calcutta rejecting their prayer under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1984 for referring the matter to the Civil Court. The petitioners were admittedly the owners of the disputed premises No. 36, Vidyasagar Street, Calcutta. On 4th December, 1996 a proceeding under Land Acquisition Act was initiated by the respondents. Therefore, being aggrieved by such action of the respondents, the writ petitioners challenged such act under Article 226 of the Constitution. The said application was however, rejected by an order dated 18th December, 1997 by a learned Single Judge of this Court. Therefore, the petitioners preferred and appeal against the said order while the matter was pending before the Division Bench, the petitioners received a notice on 5th June, 1998 under Section 9 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1984 informing them that an award of compensation would be made on 23rd June, 1998 and therefore, they were asked to appear before the Land Acquisition Collector. On the aforementioned date, the petitioners did not, however, attend the office of the Collector on account of pendency of the appeal before the Division Bench. But, their learned Solicitor sent a letter on 12th June, 1998 requesting the Land Acquisition Collector to adjourn the case in view of the pendency of the appeal. 2. The Land Acquisition Collector did not accede to such request and by letter dated 24th June, 1998 informed the petitioners that a sum of Rs. 36,15,447/- had been awarded as compensation with a request to be present before the 2nd Land Acquisition Collector on 30th June, 1998 at 4.00 p.m. and in case they would not attend before the said authorities, the award might be accepted. In has been claimed by the petitioner that they have been kept in dark inasmuch as the copy of the award was not communicated to them. Therefore, the said award; even if passed, on the aforementioned date is legally not valid and binding on them as it vitiated the principles of natural Justice. 3. In has been claimed by the petitioner that they have been kept in dark inasmuch as the copy of the award was not communicated to them. Therefore, the said award; even if passed, on the aforementioned date is legally not valid and binding on them as it vitiated the principles of natural Justice. 3. After the earlier writ petition was dismissed the petitioners ware eventually advised that they should make a formal application under Sections 18 and 23 of the Land Acquisition Act before the Land Acquisition Collector for referring the matter to the appropriate Court for determination of the award and for revision of the compensation amount. It has been claimed by the petitioners that when only five month's lapsed by filing such application from the date of the letter dated 18th February, 1999 yet, the respondent dismissed their claim on the ground that it was barred by limitation. It has been further stated by the petitioners that while construing the provision of Section 18, it should be conjointly, read Section 12 (2) of the Act. Since there was no valid notice under Section 12 (2) and the notice which was purportedly sent to the petitioners being very cryptic, and without any details, therefore, the said notice cannot be construed to be a notice under Section 12 (2). Thus, petitioners should be given a chance to file a fresh application under Section 18, even if needed, with an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. 4. Mr. Sarkar, the learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioners has submitted by placing reliance on the judgment reported in (1) AIR 1984 Andhra Pradesh, page 24, that since the notice of the award as contemplated under Section 12 (2) does not contain full details, such as, the extent of land, amount of compensation and also other details it cannot be said that the objection should be filed within six weeks from the date of receipt of such notice. In that view of the matter the order passed by the Land Acquisition Collector rejecting the prayer for referring the matter to the competent Court is illegal and therefore, it should be set aside. 5. In that view of the matter the order passed by the Land Acquisition Collector rejecting the prayer for referring the matter to the competent Court is illegal and therefore, it should be set aside. 5. The learned Advocate appearing for the State has invited my attention that the judgment in AIR 1984 Andhra Pradesh, p. 24, has been overruled by another bench decision of (2) AIR 1991 Andhra Pradesh 123, which has been held as follow :- “Under Section 18(2) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1984 (as amended by A.P. Act, 20 of 1959) notice of award Under Proviso (b) to Section 18 (2) (which corresponds to the first of Proviso (b) to Section 18 (2) in the Central Act), does not mean that it is necessary that the award copy of the reasoning part of the award need be communicated to the persons interested. If the Form 9 as per the A.P. Land Acquisition Manual is served, giving the Award No, the true area acquired, the compensation allowed, the persons known or believed to be interested and the appointment, it would be sufficient for the commencement of the limitation of two months. The particulars which are to be given in Form 9 amount to sufficient compliance with the requirement of ‘notice of award’ contained in Section 12 (2) of the Act read with the first part of Proviso (b) to Section 18 (2).” 6. In that view of the matter, I cannot place reliance on a judgment which has been subsequently overruled. The petitioners further placed reliance on a judgment reported in (3) AIR 1975 Bombay 297, which has also been overruled by the same High Court in reported judgment (4) AIR 1983 Bom page 342, which has been held as follows :- “Considering the language of sub-section (3) introduced by the Maharashtra amendment in Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. It is clear that the legislature merely intended to provide a remedy of revisional application to the High Court against any order passed by the Collector in the discharge of his statutory duty under sub-section (1) and that while the Collector so discharges his statutory duty he is not a Court under the Civil Procedure Code attracting the provisions of the Limitation Act.” 7. In the judgment of (5) AIR 1979 SC page 404, it has been indicated that the Statutory Authority/Board has no power to exercise the provision of Section 5 of the Limitation Act which has been cited below :- “Merely because the Collector while making an award under Section 11 or in serving a notice on the owner of the land under Section 12, acts as an agent of the Government, it does not necessarily imply that while making a reference to the Court under Section 18, he acts in the capacity of an agent of the Government. Section 18 (1) entrusts to the Collector the statutory duty of making a reference on the fulfilment of the conditions laid down therein. The Collector, therefore, acting under Section 18, is nothing but a statutory authority exercising his own powers under the section (6) 1905 ILR 32 Cal 605 (PC) Poll. The fulfilment of the conditions, particularly the one regarding limitation, and the conditions subject to which the power of the Collector under Section 18 to make the reference exists. The making of an application for reference within the time prescribed by proviso to Section 18(2) is a sine qua non for a valid reference by the Collector.” 8. Land Acquisition Collector has not been designated as a Court, therefore, he is not vested with the power for exercising the power under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. On a careful reference to the notice, it is also found that it contained all the details namely, the premises No, the amount of compensation and date of award, therefore, there has been sufficient compliance of Section 12 (2) of the Act. 9. Another contention has been advanced by the petitioners that in view of the provision of Section 29 of the Limitation Act, the Land Acquisition Act does not preclude the application of Section 5 of the Limitation Act. Therefore, the Land Acquisition Collector in the above situation should have entertained the application for reference under Section 18 of the L.A. Act. But such contention does not cut any ice since the Lands Acquisition Act prescribed special limitation for filial objection against the award under Section 18 of the Act. Therefore, considering the contentions raised by the petitioners from every angle I do not find there is any merit in this case. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed but to the circumstances without cost. Therefore, considering the contentions raised by the petitioners from every angle I do not find there is any merit in this case. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed but to the circumstances without cost. Let a xerox copy of the judgment duly signed by the Assistant Registrar of this Court be given to the parties upon their undertaking to apply for certified copy of the judgment.