Judgment : 1. The Petitioner has come up with the present Writ Petition for Mandamus, directing the First Respondent to refer his application dated 03.09.2008 under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 to the determination of the competent Court as to the amount of compensation payable to the Petitioner for the land acquired from the Petitioner. 2. The case of the Petitioner in nutshell is stated here under: (a) The Petitioner has purchased a total extent of 4.33 acres at No.180, Mathur Village, Sriperumbudur Taluk by virtue of Sale Deeds dated 18.05.1992 and 25.05.992. 4(1) Notification was made for acquiring the said land and later Section 6 declaration was also made. Notice under Sections 9(3) and 10 of the Act was issued to the Petitioner on 14.01.2000 asking him to appear for an enquiry on 14.2.2000. His father, one Kiran Raj dhariwal, appeared before the Tahsildar as Power Agent of the Petitioner and filed a letter before him to show that he has been authorized to appear and signed a recorded statement. His father has given a statement to the effect that there exists an equitable mortgage over the land in favour of the City Union Bank. T. Nagar and requested the Tahsildar to fix the compensation at Rs.5,000/- per cent. Thereafter, the Special Tahsildar issued a further letter dated 01.02.2001 to appear before him on 05.02.2001. His father has appeared before the said Tahsildar on 05.02.2001. Though, it seems that the enquiry was fixed on 15.02.2001, the Petitioner has not received any notice fixing the enquiry on 15.02.2001. (b) Thereafter, the Petitioner was not informed about the enquiry and the Petitioner was not aware of the order passed by the Special Tahsildar. Since there was no information, the Petitioner applied before the Public Information Officer in the office of the Special Tahsildar, Oragadam Scheme, SIPCOT on 14.07.2008 and an information has been furnished to him about the award that was passed. The Petitioner thereafter made a request, after getting information on 03.09.2008 for a reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. However, the same was not considered so far, which made the Petitioner to approach this Court by filing the present Writ Petition. 3. The Petitioner thereafter made a request, after getting information on 03.09.2008 for a reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. However, the same was not considered so far, which made the Petitioner to approach this Court by filing the present Writ Petition. 3. Counter Affidavit was filed on behalf of the Respondents, wherein the following facts have been set out: (a) The Petitioner was served with notice under Section 9(3) and 10 of the Land Acquisition Act,1894 asking him to appear for enquiry on 14.01.2000. The Petitioner’s father appeared for an enquiry on 14.02.2000 and gave a statement that the lands were mortgaged in favour of the City Union Bank, T. Nagar, Chennai and he would obtain a copy of the Sale Deed. Since, he has not furnished the copy of the Sale Deed as promised by him, again the Petitioner was requested to appear for an enquiry on 05.02.2001. The Petitioner’s father appeared for the enquiry on 05.02.2001 and gave a statement before the Special Tahsildar. But, he has neither attended the enquiry on 15.02.2001 nor furnished any details to the Special Tahsildar, as he had promised. (b) Later, the Special Tahsildar (Land Acquisition) has pronounced an award on 15.3.2001 and the entire amount of the compensation was ordered to be deposited in Civil Court Deposit. But, notice under Section 12(2) of the Act was not issued to the Writ Petitioner. Thereafter, the Petitioner’s representation dated 03.09.2008 has been received in the office on 23.09.2008, seeking reference under Section 18 of the Act. The Application made by the Petitioner seeking such reference is barred by limitation. Thus, making such averments the Counter Affidavit seeks for the dismissal of the Writ Petition. 4. The facts which are not disputed are: (i) Section 4(1) notification was made for acquiring the lands of the Petitioner. (ii) On 06.05.1999 – Section 6 declaration was made. (iii) On 14.01.2000 – Notice under Section 9(3) and 10 in Form 7 was issued to the Petitioner by the First Respondent asking the Petitioner to appear for enquiry on 14.02.2000. (iv) On 14.2.2000 – The Petitioner’s father appeared with authorization letter from the Petitioner. (v) On 05.02.2001 – Again the Petitioner’s father appeared and gave a statement to he effect that the property in question was mortgaged in favour of the City Union Bank, T. Nagar Branch. (iv) On 14.2.2000 – The Petitioner’s father appeared with authorization letter from the Petitioner. (v) On 05.02.2001 – Again the Petitioner’s father appeared and gave a statement to he effect that the property in question was mortgaged in favour of the City Union Bank, T. Nagar Branch. (vi) On 15.02.2001 – Neither the Petitioner nor his father appeared for enquiry. (vii) On 15.02.2001 – Award was passed. Admittedly, neither the Petitioner nor his father appeared on the date when the award was passed by the Special Tahsildar, Land Acquisition. (viii) On 14.07.2008 – The Petitioner requested for information from the First Respondent under the Right to Information Act, relating to the proceedings taken over the Petitioner’s property under Section 9(3) and 10 of the Act. (ix) On 31.07.2008 – Reply from the first Respondent to the Petitioner enclosing all the details including extract from the award dated 15.03.2001. (x) On 31.07.2008 – The Petitioner made an application to the first Respondent under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act seeking reference before the competent Court for enhancement of the compensation. 5. The above facts would clearly indicate that on the date when the award was passed by the Land Acquisition Officer on 15.03.2001, neither the Petitioner not his father appeared before the Land Acquisition Officer. In the Counter Affidavit, it has been made very clear that neither the Petitioner nor his father appeared before the Tahsildar on 15.03.2001, when the award was passed. In Para 12 of the Counter Affidavit, it has been made very very clear that the Petitioner was not present at the time of pronouncement of the award on 15.03.2001. 6. As per Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894,-- (a) A reference shall be made within six weeks from the date of Collector’s award, if the person making it was present or represented before the Collector. (b) If the concerned person was not present before the Collector at the time of passing the award, a reference has to be sought for atleast within six weeks from the date of receipt of the notice under Section 12(2) of the Act, or within six months from the date of the Collector’s award. It would be useful to extract Section 18 of the Act.— “18. It would be useful to extract Section 18 of the Act.— “18. 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 person 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 six weeks of the receipt of the notice from the Collector under Section 12, sub-section (2), or within six months from the date of the Collector’s award, whichever period shall first expire.” 7. In the case on hand, as stated already, it is not even the case of the Respondents that the Petitioner was present on the date, when the award was passed. It is also not the case of the Respondents, in the Counter Affidavit that the Petitioner was served with notice under Section 12(2) of the Act. 8. Then, the next question that arises for considerations is whether the Application made by the Petitioner on 03.09.2008 for reference under Section 18 can be entertained or can it be said that it is time barred as contended by the learned Government Advocate appearing for the Respondents 1 and 2. Only, if the Petitioner was aware of the award passed on 15.03.2001, it can be said that the Petitioner should have made an Application within the time prescribed under Section 18 of the Act. Nowhere in the Counter Affidavit, it has been stated that the Petitioner was aware of the award made by the Land Acquisition Officer on 15.03.2001. In such circumstances, the averment made in the affidavit by the Petitioner that only after he made a request on 14.07.2008 the information about the award was furnished to him on 31.07.2008 and only then the Petitioner was aware of the award passed has to be taken on toto. In such circumstances, the averment made in the affidavit by the Petitioner that only after he made a request on 14.07.2008 the information about the award was furnished to him on 31.07.2008 and only then the Petitioner was aware of the award passed has to be taken on toto. If the petitioner, only after the receipt of the reply from the Land Acquisition Officer on 31.07.2008 came to know about the award passed on 15.03.2001, the Application of the Petitioner made on 03.09.2008 has to be considered as an Applicant made within the time prescribed under this Act. 9. In this connection, the learned Senior counsel appearing for the Petitioner relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court reported in parsottambhai Maganbhai Patel v. State of Gujarat, 2005 (7) SCC 431 . The Hon’ble Apex Court in the said decision has held in paragraph 7 as follows: “7. This Court, therefore, held that the limitation under the latter part of Section 18(2)(b) of the Act has to be computed having regard to the date on which the claimants got knowledge of the declaration of the award either actual or constructive. This principle, however, will apply only to cases where the applicant was not present or represented when the award was made, or where no notice under Section 12(2) was served upon him. It will also apply to a case where the date for the pronouncement of the award is communicated to the parties and it is accordingly pronounced on the date previously announced by the Court, even if, the parties are not actually present on the date of its pronouncement. Coming to the facts of the instant case the High Court has not rejected the plea of the Appellants that they came to know of the award only when compensation was being paid to them in July 1998. They had admittedly no notice under Section 12(2) of the Act. They had therefore filed the application under Section 18 of the Act 22.09.1988 well within the period of limitation. The Reference Court recoded a finding in favour of the Appellants but the High Court has reversed that finding without applying the principle laid down in raja Harish Chandra. They had admittedly no notice under Section 12(2) of the Act. They had therefore filed the application under Section 18 of the Act 22.09.1988 well within the period of limitation. The Reference Court recoded a finding in favour of the Appellants but the High Court has reversed that finding without applying the principle laid down in raja Harish Chandra. Moreover, we find from the grounds of appeal filed before the High Court that the assertion of the claimants that they came to know of the declaration of the award only when compensation was being paid to them in July 1988 has not even been challenged.” 10. Yet another decision relied on by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Petitioner is reported in Bhagwan Das v. State of U.P., 2010 (3) CTC 83 (SC). In para, 12 of the said decision, the Hon’ble Apex Court has held as follows: “12. The following position therefore emerges from the interpretation of the Proviso to Section 18 of the Act: (i) If the award is made in the presence of the person interested (or his authorized representative), he has to make an Application within six weeks from the date of the Collector’s award itself. (ii) If the award is not made in the presence of the person interested (or his authorized representative), he has to make the Application seeking reference within six weeks of the receipt of the notice from the Collector under Section 12(2). (iii) If the person interested (or his representative) was not present when the award is made, and if he does not receive the notice under Section 12(2) from the Collector, he has to make the Application within six months of the date on which he actually or constructively came to know about the contents of the award. (iv) If a person interested receives a notice under Section 12(2) of the Act, after the expiry of six weeks from the date of receipt of such notice, he cannot claim the benefit of the provision for six months for making the application on the ground that the date of receipt of notice under Section 12(2) of the Act was the date of knowledge of the contents of the award. A person who fails to make an application for reference within the time prescribed is not without remedy. A person who fails to make an application for reference within the time prescribed is not without remedy. It is open to him to make an Application under Section 28-A of the Act, on the basis of an award of the Court in respect of the other lands covered by the same acquisition notification, if there is an increase. Be that as it may.” 11. Thus the Hon’ble Apex Court has held that, if the person interested or his representative was not present when the award was made and if he does not receive the notice under Section 12(2) of the Act from the Collector, he has to make an Application within six months from the date on which he actually or constructively came to know about the contents of the award. 12. In the case on hand, the Petitioner admittedly sought the information from the First Respondent under Right to Information Act, relating to the proceeding under Section 9 (3) and 10 of the Land Acquisition Act on 14.07.2008 and he received a reply for the same on 31.07.2008. Then, the Petitioner made an Application on 03.09.2008 for reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. These facts were not disputed by the Respondents in the Counter Affidavit filed by them. 13. Considering the above facts and circumstances, I am of the considered view that the Petitioner has made an Application under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 within the time prescribed under the Act/within the reasonable time, after receiving the4 reply from the first Respondent on 31.07.2008, intimating about the award that was passed on 15.03.2001. 14. In view of the above stated position, there shall be a direction to the First Respondent to consider the Application of the Petitioner dated 03.09.2008 under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act to the determination of the competent Court as to the amount of compensation payable to the Petitioner, in the light of the discussions made above. The said exercise has to be carried out by the First Respondent, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 15. The Writ Petition is ordered accordingly. However, no orders as to costs.