JUDGEMENT 1. A land acquisition proceeding was initiated in the year 1977-78 by publication of a notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act. The proceeding concluded in the year 1990 with the preparation of the award. On notice, one Sushil Kumar Sinha filed an affidavit sometime in the year 1991 before the Collector, Darbhanga that he was not the owner of the lands that was the subject matter of the award rather one Kumud Kishore Narayan (petitioner) was in possession of the said lands. 2. The Housing Board purported to evict the petitioner from the lands in question through several orders, which were challenged by the petitioner in CWJC No. 12247 of 2002. The petitioner had also filed an application before the authorities concerned that his lands may be exempted from the land acquisition proceedings. This Court quashed the orders contained in Annexures-1, 2, 3 and 4 of the CWJC No. 12247 of 2002 and directed the authorities to consider whether it would be possible to exempt the lands from the proceedings. On perusal of the order of this Court dated 28.3.2005, it appears that this fact was not brought to the notice of the Court that the lands acquisition proceedings had been concluded as far back as in the year 1990 and the award was prepared and steps had been taken to take possession of the lands acquired. 3. After the order of remand, the Collector, Darbhanga by Annexure-1 considered the issues raised on behalf of the petitioner including the issue whether the lands would be exempted from the proceedings and came to the conclusion that since the proceedings had closed 13 years back and after notification under Section 11(1) of the Act, there was no possibility of exempting the lands from the said proceedings. The order was challenged by the petitioner in the appeal and subsequently by filing revision. All the three quasi-judicial authorities rejected the application of the petitioner. 4. The question, therefore, before this Court is that once the said authorities had got knowledge of the fact that Sushil Kumar Sinha was not the owner of the lands which were the subject matter of the proceedings, it ought to have sent notices to the petitioner. All the three quasi-judicial authorities rejected the application of the petitioner. 4. The question, therefore, before this Court is that once the said authorities had got knowledge of the fact that Sushil Kumar Sinha was not the owner of the lands which were the subject matter of the proceedings, it ought to have sent notices to the petitioner. On the other hand, it may also be said that once the petitioner got notice of the fact that his lands had been acquired when the authorities had come to evict him, the petitioner could have filed an application under Section 18 of the Act before the Collector so that the issues could have been finally settled. 5. Certain documents have been filed on behalf of the petitioner to show that he has title over the lands in question. His possession over,the said land is not in dispute. These aspects should necessarily have to be considered by the competent authority. 6. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, I give the opportunity to the petitioner to file an application under Section 18 of the Act before the Collector, Darbhanga who will forward it to the Court within a period of two months from the date of filing of the application so that the Court may decide the title and if it is found that the petitioners land has been acquired, he may be given the award amount deposited for the lands in question in the Treasury. 7. This Court is well aware of the fact that there is a limitation to filing of the application under Section 18 of the Act which is a period of six weeks. However, the peculiar facts of this case warrant that the limitation should be condoned by the Collector and the matter should be forwarded to the Court. 8. This application is disposed of with the aforesaid observations and directions.