Order 1. This appeal is directed against the order dated 21-8-2003, Peerappa v. State, CRP No. 2855 of 2001, order dated 21-8-2003 (KAR), of the learned Single Judge of the Karnataka High Court whereby he dismissed the revision filed by the appellant, who is now represented by his legal representatives, against the order passed by the Principal Civil Judge (Senior Division), Gulbarga (hereinafter described as “the Reference Court”), declining to entertain an application filed by the appellant under Section 18(3) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, “the Act”). 2. In exercise of the power vested in it under Section 28(1) of the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Act, 1966 (for short, “the 1966 Act”), the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Board (for short, “the Board”) issued Notification dated 17-11-1981 for the acquisition of land including 5 acres 30 guntas belonging to the appellant. This was followed by Notification dated 24-11-1981 issued under Section 28(4) of the 1966 Act. 3. The appellant and other landowners affected by the acquisition of land filed Writ Petitions Nos. 9356-61 of 1982. The learned Single Judge passed interim order dated 5-3-1982, the relevant portion of which, as contained in Annexure P-1, is extracted below: “Pending disposal of the aforesaid writ petition, it is hereby ordered by this Court on 5-3-1982 (by Hon'ble Mr Justice K.S. Puttaswamy). Further proceedings pursuant to the notifications issued by the Government in Commerce and Industries Department (ID, Bangalore) in Re.OI.115 SPG 81 dated 17-11-1981; CI.124/EPQ/81 dated 24-11-1981; and the Exattum insured thereon and the notices issued by the second respondent to the petitioners in Nos. REV/LAQ/2/81-82 dated 30-12-1981; LAQ.1/81-82 dated 30-12-1981 and dispossession of the petitioners from the lands pursuant to the notifications or notices be and the admit hereby stayed.” 4. The writ petitions filed by the appellant and others were dismissed by the High Court on 5-8-1987. In the meanwhile, the Land Acquisition Officer, in total disregard of the stay order passed by the High Court, proceeded to pass an award for payment of compensation @ Rs 1700 per acre which comes to around Rs 0.35 per square yard. The copy of the award available in the record sent by the Reference Court shows that on the top of it the date has been mentioned as 28-5-1982 but on the last page, it is shown to have been dictated and typed on 28-6-1982. The copy of the award available in the record sent by the Reference Court shows that on the top of it the date has been mentioned as 28-5-1982 but on the last page, it is shown to have been dictated and typed on 28-6-1982. The appellant is said to have made an application on 20-6-1982 under Section 18(1) of the Act for enhancement of compensation. However, it is not clear whether the same was forwarded to the Reference Court. 5. After about three years of dismissal of the writ petition, the competent authority took possession of the acquired land on 7-6-1990. On the same day, the appellant received compensation under protest and made another application under Section 18(1) of the Act. After ten months, the appellant filed an application under Section 18(3) of the Act (as amended by the Karnataka Legislature). He also applied for condonation of delay. 6. By an order dated 18-6-2001, the Reference Court refused to condone the delay and declined the appellant's prayer for summoning the record of the case decided by the Special Land Acquisition Officer of the Board. The Reference Court made a detailed analysis of the evidence and opined that the date of the first application made by the appellant had been interpolated. The learned Single Judge of the High Court dismissed the revision filed by the appellant and confirmed the order passed by the Reference Court. 7. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and carefully scrutinised the records. In our view, it is not necessary to pronounce upon the legality and correctness of the finding recorded by the Reference Court as also the learned Single Judge of the High Court on the issue of interpolation in the date of the application made by the appellant because the award passed by the Special Land Acquisition Collector was ex facie illegal. As on 28-5-1982 or even 28-6-1982, the Special Land Acquisition Officer did not have the jurisdiction to pass the award because the High Court had stayed all proceedings in furtherance of the Notifications dated 17-11-1981 and 24-11-1981. Unfortunately, neither the Reference Court nor the High Court has adverted to this issue and decided the matter as if the application was filed for reference after expiry of the period of limitation. Unfortunately, neither the Reference Court nor the High Court has adverted to this issue and decided the matter as if the application was filed for reference after expiry of the period of limitation. For the purpose of entertaining the application for reference, the award can, at best, be treated to have been passed on 7-6-1990 that is the date on which possession of the acquired land was taken and compensation was offered to the appellant and if that date is taken into consideration, the application filed by the appellant for reference of the matter under Section 18 cannot be treated as delayed. 8. In the result, the appeal is allowed. The impugned order as also the one passed by the Reference Court are set aside and the Reference Court is directed to decide on merits the appellant's prayer for re-determination of market value of the acquired land. Since the acquisition proceedings were initiated almost 30 years ago, we direct the Reference Court to decide the matter as early as possible but latest within six months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. The record be immediately sent back to the Reference Court i.e. Principal Civil Judge (Senior Division), Gulbarga. A copy of this order be also sent to the court concerned.