DR. AR. LAKSHMANAN, C. J. ( 1 ) HEARD Sri Aga Reddy, learned Counsel for the appellant and the learned government Pleader for Land Acquisition. The matter arises under the Land acquisition Act, 1894 (for short "the Act" ). The writ petition was filed by the appellant to declare the impugned proceedings dated 25-8-2000 passed by the Land Acquisition officer-cum-Revenue Divisional Officer, peddapalli, Karimnagar District refusing to refer the application filed under Section 18 of the Act to the competent civil Court for adjudication of the market value of the land acquired, as illegal and unlawful. ( 2 ) IN the instant case the land belonging to the petitioner-appellant was acquired for the purpose of providing house sites to the weaker sections of the society. An award under Section 11 of the Act was passed on 30-11-2000 (sic. 1999 ). A notice under section 12 (2) of the Act was also despatched to the appellant on 11-1-2000 calling upon him to receive the compensation amount within 7 days in the office of the Revenue divisional Officer. Accordingly the appellant appeared before the Revenue divisional Officer and received the compensation amount on 22-1-2000 through cheque, of course, under protest. Thereafter he made an application on 29-6-2000 under section 18 (1) of the Act for referring the matter to the civil Court for enhancement of compensation. By the impugned proceedings dated 25-8-2000 the respondent rejected the said application stating that the same has not been filed within a period of two months from the date of service of notice under Section 12 (2) of the Act. Questioning the same the writ petition was filed. ( 3 ) A counter was filed by the respondent specifically stating that the notice under section 12 (2) of the Act was despatched from the respondent s office on 11-1-2000 and on receipt of the said notice only the awardee appeared before the Revenue divisional Officer and received the compensation amount through cheque on 22-1-2000. The said fact was not denied by the appellant by filing any reply. The said fact was not denied by the appellant by filing any reply. ( 4 ) IT is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that the service of notice under Section 12 (2) of the Act is mandatory and unless such a notice is served on the appellant the limitation for filing the application under Section 18 of the Act will not start and the application seeking reference has to be made within two months from the date of service of notice under section 12 (2) of the Act only. The learned counsel for the appellant further submitted that in view of the judgment of the Full bench of the Bombay High Court reported in Bhupal Premchand Shah v. State the order passed on an application for reference under section 18 (1) of the Act is considered to be an order by the Collector acting as a Court and, therefore, the Collector is deemed to be acting as a Court while dealing with and disposing of such an application. Therefore, the Collector ought to have condoned the delay in filing the application under section 18 (1) of the Act and ought to have considered the application seeking to refer the matter to the civil Court. ( 5 ) WE have perused the representation made by the learned counsel for the appellant before the Land Acquisition officer. It is stated therein that since he underwent medical treatment in Praja nursing Home at Karimnagar from 8-3-2000 to 28-6-2000 he could not attend to his regular duties and, therefore, the delay caused in preferring the application to refer the matter to the civil Court, has to be condoned. We have also perused the impugned order dated 25-8-2000 which reads thus: sri Gaisetti Thirupathi s/o Venkataiah r/o Kanagathi (v) of Odela (Mandal), karimnagar dist. , is hereby informed that he has filed petition u/s 18 of L. A. Act requesting to refer the matter to the civil Court for adjudication of proper compensation, the petition has been examined with reference to record and l. A. Act and that:"the awardee has not filed petition u/s 18 of L. A. Act within the stipulated period of (2) months from the date of service of notice u/s 12 (2) of L. A. Act, as required u/s 18 of L. A. Act. In this case the notice u/s 12 (2) of L. A. Act has been issued on 11-1-2000, and despatched on same day. The land compensation has been paid to the awardee on 21-1-2000. But the awardee has filed petition u/s 18 of L. A. Act in this office on 29-6-2000, and despatched on same day. The land compensation has been paid to the awardee on 21-1-2000. But the awardee has filed petition u/s 18 of L. A. Act in this office on 29-6-2000 i. e. , after lapse of (five) months period. Hence the petition u/s 18 of L. A. Act is the time barred one. Therefore, his petition u/s 18 of L. A. Act to refer the matter to the Civil Court is hereby rejected. " ( 6 ) SECTION 18 of the Act is reproduced hereunder for the sake of convenience: reference to Court:- (1) Any person interested who has not accepted the award may, by written application to the Collector, require that the matter be referred by the Collector for the determination of the Court, whether his objection be to the measurement of the land, the amount of the compensation the persons to whom it is payable, or the apportionment of the compensation among the persons interested. (2) The application shall state the grounds on which objection to the award is taken. Provided that every such application shall be made: (A) if the person making it was present or represented before the Collector at the time when he made his award within six weeks from the date of the Collector s award; (B) in other cases, within two months from the date or service of the notice from the Collector under section 12 sub-section (2 ). ( 7 ) IT is not in dispute that the application made under Section 18 of the Act is filed beyond time and, therefore, there was no alternative for the Land Acquisition officer but to reject the said application. Once an application under Section 18 of the Act is filed in time there is no alternative for the land Acquisition Officer except to refer the matter to the Civil Court regardless of the fact of pendency of the dispute under section 30 of the Act. In the instant case though the compensation was received by the claimant-appellant it cannot be a ground to deny him right to seek enhanced compensation. In the instant case though the compensation was received by the claimant-appellant it cannot be a ground to deny him right to seek enhanced compensation. In spite of receipt of compensation, when an application is made to refer the matter to the civil Court there is an implied protest by the claimant for the quantum of compensation awarded by the land Acquisition Officer. But in the instant case the application to refer the matter to the civil Court was filed beyond the period of limitation prescribed under Section 18 (2) (b) of the Act. ( 8 ) THE learned Government Pleader while replying to the arguments advanced by the learned Counsel for the appellant and also with reference to the judgment of the full Bench of the Bombay High Court in bhupal Premchand s case (supra), submitted that an application must be made within the stipulated time from the date of receipt of the certified copy of the award and the delay cannot be condoned under Section 5 of the limitation Act. In this context the learned government Pleader referred to a judgment of the Division Bench of the Bombay High court in Laxmibai Narayan Patil v. State of maharashtra which, in turn, has followed the decision of the Supreme Court in Officer on Special Ditty (Land Acqn.) v. Shah Manilal chandulal. In the said case it was argued by the counsel that the period of six weeks prescribed in the proviso to sub-section (2) of Section 18 of the Act should be computed from the date of receipt of the certified copy of the order by the claimant and not from the date of receipt of the notice under section 12 (2) of the Act and if it is so computed the application of the claimant therein was within time. The learned counsel for the respondents therein, however, submitted that in a case where notice has been served under Section 12 (2) of the Act the application for reference under Section 18 of the Act should be made within six weeks of the receipt of such notice. The learned counsel for the respondents therein, however, submitted that in a case where notice has been served under Section 12 (2) of the Act the application for reference under Section 18 of the Act should be made within six weeks of the receipt of such notice. According to the learned counsel there is no basis and justification for the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant that the limitation should be computed from the date of receipt of the certified copy of the award and the time required for obtaining the certified copy of the award should be excluded. Reliance was placed in support of this contention on the decisions of the Supreme Court in State of punjab v. Satinder Bir Singh and Officer on special Duty (Land Acqn.) (supra ). While considering these two decisions the Bombay high Court in Laxmibai Narayan Patil (supra) held in paragraph 8 of its judgment as follows: it is also clear from the decision of the supreme Court in Officer on Special duty (Land Acqn.) v Shah Manilal chandulal, (1996) 9 SCC 414 :1996 AIR scw 941 that the Limitation Act has no application to proceedings before the collector for reference and, therefore, section 5 of the Limitation Act cannot be applied for extension of the period of limitation prescribed under the proviso to sub-section (2) of Section 18. In the above case, the application under Section 18 (1) of the Act was found to have been filed beyond the period of six weeks from the date of making of the award. The delay was sought to be justified on the ground that an application for certified copy of the award had been filed by the applicant and only after its supply, in consultation with its counsel, the reference application could be filed. This contention found favour with the high Court. The High Court, accordingly, condoned the delay, and directed the Special land Acquisition officer to make the reference. On appeal by the Special Land Acquisition officer, it was held by the Supreme court that the application was barred by limitation and the Collector had no power to extend time making an application under Section 18 (1) of the act for reference to the Court. ,the supreme Court in the above case also referred to its earlier decision in State of punjab v. Satinder Bir Singh (supra ). ,the supreme Court in the above case also referred to its earlier decision in State of punjab v. Satinder Bir Singh (supra ). ( 9 ) IN Officer on Special Duty (Land Acqn.) (supra) the Supreme Court held thus: it is to be remembered that the Land acquisition (Amendment) Act (68 of 1984) was enacted prescribing the limitation to exercise the power under sections 4,6 and 11 and also excluded the time occupied due to stay granted by the Courts. Taking cognizance of the limitation prescribed in proviso to sub-section (2) of Section 18, the provisions of the Limitation Act were not expressly extended. Though section 29 (2) of the Limitation Act is available, and the limitation in proviso to sub-section (2) of Section 18 may be treated to be special law, in the absence of such an application by Land acquisition (Amendment) Act (68 of 1984), the Act specifically maintains distinction between the Collector and the Court and the Collector/lao performs only statutory duties under the Act, including one while making reference under Section 18. It is difficult to construe that the Collector/ lao while making reference under section 18, as statutory authority still acts as a Court for the purpose of section 5 of the Limitation Act. ( 10 ) THUS, it is seen from the above that the Limitation Act has no application to the proceedings before the Collector and, therefore, Section 5 of the Limitation Act cannot be applied for condonation of delay in making an application under sub-sec. (2) of Section 18 of the Act. The Supreme Court in Officer on Special Duty (Land Acqn.) (supra) held that though sub-section (3) of section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, by virtue of local amendments, treated the collector as a Court for the limited purpose of exercising revisional jurisdiction under section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure to correct the errors of orders passed by the collector under Section 18 of the Act, he cannot be considered to be a Court for the purpose of Section 5 of the Limitation Act. Section 5 of the Limitation Act stands attracted only when the Land Acquisition officer acts as a Court. ( 11 ) FOR the foregoing reasons, we are of the opinion that the appeal has no merits. The writ appeal accordingly fails and is dismissed. No costs.