Judgment Mohit S. Shah, J.—These first appeals are filed by the Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation [hereinafter referred to as “the Corporation”] under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 [hereinafter referred to as “the Act”] read with Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 for challenging the judgment and award dated 27.06.1995 passed by the learned 2nd Joint District Judge, Mehsana in Land Acquisition Reference Nos. 782 and 783 of 1989. 2. The Respondent No. 1-Patidar Kelavani Mandal is a trust of which Respondent Nos. 1/1 to 1/4 are shown to be trustees. The trustees had purchased the land bearing city survey No. 479 revenue survey No. 54 admeasuring 34 gunthas and land bearing city survey No. 480 revenue survey No. 53 admeasuring 2 acres and 19 gunthas for educational purpose. Out of the said land, a part of the land was given to Agriculture Produce Market Committee, Sidhpur and the remaining land i.e. land admeasuring 3440 sq. mts. in city survey No. 479 and land admeasuring 6791 sq. mts. in city survey No. 410, aggregating to 10231 sq. mts., was acquired for the purpose of expansion of Corporation’s Bus Stand at Sidhpur. The notification under Section 4 of the Act was published in the official gazette on 29.03.1979 and the notification under Section 6 of the Act was published on 19.02.1981. The Land Acquisition Officer published the award on 30.03.1982. Fresh award was published on 27.09.1983 for land admeasuring 9825.62 sq. mts. At the time of making the second award, the proceedings in respect of the land and garage in possession of the tenant-Mr. Martin D. Farnandis were kept pending and the Land Acquisition Officer made award on 27.09.1987 in respect of the said land admeasuring 415.38 sq. mts. and garage thereon. The trustees filed application for reference under Section 18 of the Act on 04.09.1989 contending that the compensation awarded for acquisition of the land was inadequate. 3. It is also required to be noted at this stage that the acquired land had one bungalow, a garage and a well. The garage was rented to the tenant-Mr. Martin D. Farnandis. The said tenant had filed a civil suit in the Court of learned Civil Judge (S.D.), Mehsana and obtained stay against the award passed by the Special Land Acquisition Officer. The garage was rented to the tenant-Mr. Martin D. Farnandis. The said tenant had filed a civil suit in the Court of learned Civil Judge (S.D.), Mehsana and obtained stay against the award passed by the Special Land Acquisition Officer. The tenant also made separate application for reference under Section 18 of the Act and the reference made at the instance of the tenant was numbered as L.A.R. No. 450 of 1988. The reference made at the instance of the trustees numbered as L.A.R. Nos. 782 and 783 of 1989. The Special Land Acquisition Officer also made reference bearing No. 794 of 1988 for apportionment of the compensation awarded between the tenant and the landlord. 4. Before the Reference Court the Land Acquisition Officer contended that the reference made at the instance of the landlord was time barred. The civil suit filed by the tenant in the Court of learned Civil Judge (S.D.), Mehsana was only in respect of land admeasuring 415.38 sq. mts. and the stay order passed in the said civil suit did not and could not have enured for the benefit of the owners of the remaining land. The Reference Court, however, overruled the said objection on the ground that the owners of the land i.e. trustees were not served with the notice under Section 12(2) of the Act. The Reference Court relied on the decisions of this Court in Damodlal vs. State of Gujarat [19 GLT 259] and also in Ishabhai Umarbhai vs. State of Gujarat & Others [ 1988(1) GLH 507 ] and on the basis of the said decision observed that if notice under Section 12(2) of the Act is not served along with contents of the award, the limitation period will start only after the contents of the award are made known to the claimants. The Reference Court also held that the opponents were not able to produce any evidence to show that notice under Section 12(2) along with the contents of the award were served upon the interested party. The Reference Court, accordingly, held that the reference applications were filed within the period of limitation. 4.1 On merits, the Reference Court held that compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer at the rate of Rs. 12 per sq. mt. was highly inadequate. The Reference Court, accordingly, held that the reference applications were filed within the period of limitation. 4.1 On merits, the Reference Court held that compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer at the rate of Rs. 12 per sq. mt. was highly inadequate. That looking to the developments of the surrounding lands in the area and considering the awards in other cases and the sale instances of comparable land, market value of the land was required to be determined at the rate of Rs. 62 per sq. mt. in the year 1979 and Rs. 72 per sq. mt in the year 1983. Thus, the Reference Court awarded additional compensation at the rate of Rs. 50 per sq. mt. to the claimants of Land Acquisition Reference Nos. 782 and 783 of 1989. The Reference Court also awarded increase under Sub-section (1A) of Section 23 and solatium at the rate of 30% on the amount of compensation under Sub-section (2) of Section 23. The Reference Court also awarded interest on the additional amount of compensation and solatium at the rate of 9% p.a. from the date of taking over possession for the period of first year and thereafter at the rate of 15% p.a. till realization. The Reference Court also held that the tenant was entitled to be paid additional compensation amount of Rs. 5,000/- with interest at the rate of 9% p.a. from out of the amount payable to the trustees. 5. There is no dispute about the fact that on the basis of the aforesaid award of the Reference Court made on 27.06.1995, the Corporation-appellant herein deposited amount of Rs. 25,11,954.61 ps. on 27.12.1995. Thereafter on 28.01.1997 further amount of Rs. 95,152.99 was deposited. There is also no dispute about the fact that the aforesaid total amount of Rs. 26,03,307.60 was deposited by the Corporation was permitted to be withdrawn by the claimants-trustees. 6. At the hearing of these appeals, Mrs. Vasavdatta Bhatt, learned Counsel for the Corporation-appellant herein has seriously pressed the contention that the Land Acquisition Reference Nos. 782 and 783 of 1989 were grossly time barred. 26,03,307.60 was deposited by the Corporation was permitted to be withdrawn by the claimants-trustees. 6. At the hearing of these appeals, Mrs. Vasavdatta Bhatt, learned Counsel for the Corporation-appellant herein has seriously pressed the contention that the Land Acquisition Reference Nos. 782 and 783 of 1989 were grossly time barred. It is contended that since the land Acquisition Officer had published the award on 27.09.1983, the applications for reference under Section 18 of the Act were required to be made within 6 weeks from the receipt of the notice from the Collector under Section 12(2) or within 6 months from the Collector’s award, whichever period shall first expire. It is submitted that the fact that the trustees were served with the notice under Section 12(2) was admitted by the trustees in their application dated 04.04.1989 seeking condonation of delay that they had received the notice under Section 12(2) of the Land Acquisition Act on 27.09.1987. It is, therefore, submitted that in view of the above clear admission in paragraph 4 of the said application dated 04.04.1989, the application for reference was clearly beyond the limitation period of 6 weeks from the receipt of the notice under Section 12(2) and also clearly beyond the period of 6 months from the date of the award. 6.1 It is also contended in the alternative that the award made by the Reference Court granting additional compensation at the rate of Rs. 50 per sq. mt. over and above the rate of Rs. 12/Rs.22 awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer is contrary to law. 7. On the other hand, Mr. K.D. Shah, learned Counsel for the respondents-claimants, has opposed the appeals and has supported the judgment of the Reference Court. It is submitted that the respondent-claimants are entitled to get higher amount of compensation considering the fact that the land in question is situated within the municipal limits of Sidhpur town and that the land was situated on Ahmedabad-Delhi National Highway with railway station close by. It is also submitted that on the date of issuance of notification under Section 4 of the Act there were institutions like College, High School, Dispensary, Market Yard, Banks, etc. as well as Isabgul factories and other industries and therefore, the Reference Court ought to have awarded compensation of Rs. 250/- per sq. mt. 7.1 Mr. It is also submitted that on the date of issuance of notification under Section 4 of the Act there were institutions like College, High School, Dispensary, Market Yard, Banks, etc. as well as Isabgul factories and other industries and therefore, the Reference Court ought to have awarded compensation of Rs. 250/- per sq. mt. 7.1 Mr. Shah has also relied on the decisions of this Court in Rajat Hirabhai Motibhai & Ors. vs. Dy. Collector, Land Acquisition & Rehabilitation, Panam Project, Godhra & Ors. [ 1985(1) GLR 275 ] and in Ishabhai Umarbhai vs. State of Gujarat & Others [ 1988(1) GLH 507 ] in support of the contention that the limitation for making an application under Section 18 of the Act commences not merely from the date on which the claimants received the notice under Section 12(2) of the Act, but on the date on which a copy of the award is served on the claimants. 8. Having heard the learned Counsel for the parties, we have given anxious consideration to the rival submissions. In Rajat Hirabhai Motibhai & Ors. vs. Dy. Collector, Land Acquisition & Rehabilitation, Panam Project, Godhra & Ors., [ 1985(1) GLR 275 ] this Court observed as under:— “There is an obligation on the part of the Collector not merely to intimate about the passing of the award but he has to communicate the essential contents of the award, if not a copy of the award. In view of the said obligation of the Collector, it follows that the time for reckoning the period for filing a reference application will commence with the service of the copy of the award, and if such an application is made within time, thereafter, it shall be disposed of in accordance with law.” Similarly, in Ishabhai Umarbhai vs. State of Gujarat & Others [ 1988(1) GLH 507 ] another Division Bench of this Court held that, the period of limitation under Section 18(2)(b) has to be reckoned from the date of communicating the contents of the award as provided in the above said decision of our High Court. 8.1 In the aforesaid decision, therefore, this Court has taken the view that period of limitation does not commence merely with service of the notice of the award under Section 12(2) of the Act if a copy of the award with the contents thereof are not communicated to the claimants. 9. 8.1 In the aforesaid decision, therefore, this Court has taken the view that period of limitation does not commence merely with service of the notice of the award under Section 12(2) of the Act if a copy of the award with the contents thereof are not communicated to the claimants. 9. In the facts of the present case, however, as transpired from the claimants’ application dated 04.04.1989, the trustees had received the first notice under Section 12(2) of the Act on 27.09.1983 on the basis of the award dated 30.04.1982 and the compensation amount as per the said award was received by the claimants on 06.10.1983. It may be that the claimants received the amount under protest but the very fact that they received the amount of compensation for land admeasuring 9825.62 sq. mts. on 06.10.1983 would clearly indicate that the claimants were posted with the knowledge about the contents of the award. Even if the claimants were to be paid any other amount under the award dated 23.09.1987 of which the claimants were served with the notice under Section 12(2), the claimants received the notice under Section 12(2) of the Act on 27.09.1987 and hence, it cannot be said that the claimants were not communicated the contents of the award. The claimants were basically aggrieved by poor rate of compensation at which they were paid the compensation amount under the award dated 27.09.1983 for the land admeasuring 9825.62 sq. mts. It was only because of the fact that the stay against acquisition of the garage in possession of the tenant was vacated, a further award was required to be made by the Land Acquisition Officer on 23.09.1987 of which notice under Section 12(2) was served upon the claimants on 27.09.1987. The claimants themselves were conscious of the fact that there was delay in making application for reference and that the delay was to the extent of 18 months and 27 days. The claimants prayed for condonation of delay in the application dated 04.04.1989. 10. As per the settled legal position, the Collector, under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1984, is not a Court within the meaning of the Limitation Act, 1963 and the Collector has no power to condone any delay in making application for reference under Section 18 of the Act. 11. 10. As per the settled legal position, the Collector, under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1984, is not a Court within the meaning of the Limitation Act, 1963 and the Collector has no power to condone any delay in making application for reference under Section 18 of the Act. 11. In view of the above factual position, we have no hesitation in holding that the application dated 04.04.19989 made by the claimants-trustees of the Patidar Kelavani Mandal for enhancement of compensation was beyond the period of limitation prescribed in Section 18 of the Act and therefore, Land Acquisition Reference Nos. 782 and 783 of 1989 were not competent. The Reference Court, therefore, erred in entertaining the references on merits and in awarding additional compensation at the rate of Rs. 50 per sq. mt. over and above the compensation awarded by the Special Land Acquisition Officer at the rate of Rs. 12/Rs.22 per sq. mt. and also in awarding amount of additional increase under Sub-section (1A) of Section 23 and solatium under Sub-section (2) of Section 23 on the additional amount of compensation with interest under Section 28. 12. In view of the above, the respondents-claimants-trustees of the Patidar Kelavani Mandal will have to refund the amount of Rs. 26,03,307.60 ps. received by them on the basis of the award dated 27.06.1995 passed by the 2nd Joint District Judge, Mehsana in Land Acquisition Reference Nos. 782 and 783 of 1989 which is being set aside by this judgment. 13. The next question is whether the respondents-claimants should be directed to pay any interest on the amount of Rs. 26,03,307.60 ps. 13.1 On the above aspect, Mr. K.D. Shah, learned Counsel for the respondents-claimants, has submitted that the Patidar Kelavani Mandal is a public charitable trust having educational institutions and that the additional amount of compensation was awarded by the Reference Court after considering all the relevant facts and circumstances of the case and that in fact, the respondents-claimants were required to be paid compensation at a much higher rate than the rate at which the Reference Court awarded the additional compensation. 13.2 On the other hand, Mrs. 13.2 On the other hand, Mrs. Vasavdatta Bhatt, learned Counsel for the appellant, submitted that since the respondents-claimants were not entitled to receive any amount of additional compensation in time barred reference, the respondents-claimants be directed to refund the amount with interest at the rate of 15% p.a. or at least 12% p.a. 14. In stay applications filed by the Corporation being Civil Application Nos. 6252 of 1995 and 6253 of 1995 this Court had issued Rule on 7.1.1997 and the applications were disposed of on 29.12.2005 with following order:— “Heard. Mr. V.G. Dave, learned Counsel for Mr. Tushar Mehta states that the amount has already been deposited. Therefore, the question of granting stay against the decree in land reference case No. 782/89 & 783/89 will not survive. The amount so deposited and disbursed will be subject to the result of the appeal. These Civil Applications stand disposed of accordingly.” 15. Having heard the learned Counsel for the parties, we are of the view that on merits the Reference Court had given full justification for enhancing the paid up compensation from Rs. 12/Rs.22 per sq. mt. awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer by a further sum of Rs. 50 per sq. mt. and the judgment of the Reference Court is set aside only on the technical ground that the applications for reference were time barred. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, we do not issue any direction for paying any interest on the amount of Rs. 26,03,307.60 ps., however, we do direct that the said amount shall be refunded by the respondents to the appellant-Corporation by 31.12.2009. If the amount is not refunded to the appellant Corporation by 31.12.2009 the amount will carry interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from 01.01.2001. 16. Since we have accepted the appellant’s contention that the applications for reference were time barred, the cross objections filed by Patidar Kelavani Mandal for further enhancement of the compensation also stand dismissed. P P P P P