JUDGMENT & ORDER : 1. This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for setting aside/quashing the order dated 20.01.2010 issued by the office of the Deputy Commissioner, Churachandpur, rejecting her petition for referring her case to the Civil Judge concerned under Section 18 of Land Acquisition Act 1894, for just and equitable determination of the value of her land acquired for the purpose of constructing Khuga Right Side Canal and the compensation to be paid for the same to her by the State Government and at the same time praying for issuance of a writ of mandamus/order/ direction to the Deputy Commissioner, Churachandpur to do the same. 2. In spite of sufficient time given to the respondents to file counter affidavit since the petition was filed and moved on 17.06.2013, the respondents have not bothered to do so, therefore, the matter was taken up and learned counsel representing the parties Mr. Khupchinpao, for the petitioner and Mr. A. Shyam Sharma for the respondents were heard. 3. The case of the petitioner is that Government of Manipur proposed to acquire some private lands for the purpose of construction of Khuga Right Side Cannel, in the district of Churachandpur, therefore, a notification No. 38/41/93-R, dated 27.8.2007 under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was issued. Among the lands proposed to be acquired, her lands were included. In the notification, her name and the area of the lands belonging to her were mentioned at Sl. No. 22 and 67. Thereafter, the Government issued another notification No. 38/41/93-R, dated 21.04.2008 under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 declaring the lands specified in the schedule therein were needed for the public purposes, that is, for construction of Khuga Right Side Cannel and directed the Collector Land Acquisition to order for acquisition of lands under Section 7 of the same Act. In pursuance of the said notification, the Collector Land Acquisition, Churachandpur issued a general notification No. DC(CCP)/LA/2005-3, dated 29.04.2008 under Section 9 (i) & (ii) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 specifically mentioning the lands to be taken over by the Government and at the same time invited all persons interested in the lands mentioned therein to file specific written claim and objections, if any by 13.05.2008, and to appear personally or by agent, and submit it at the office of Deputy Commissioner or Deputy Collector, Churachandpur, as per Section 8 of the Land Acquisition Act. 4. Following the notification, the petitioner submitted her written objection and claim dated 13.05.2008 to the Collector Land Acquisition claiming that construction of the Cannel has already been going on since the last 10 (ten) years, though land acquisition proceeding was initiated only in 2007, hence her lands have been rendered useless since long time ago, and demanded compensation amount at the rate of Rs. 2,00,000/- (Rupees two lakh) per acre for the wet paddy field, Rs. 1,50,000/- (Rupees one lakh fifty thousand) for the homestead land and Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh) for the un-surveyed area. Along with it, the petitioner also demanded interest and solatium. However, her petition was not considered by the Collector Land Acquisition properly and award was announced arbitrarily on 20.05.2009 wherein only Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand) was fixed for agricultural land per acre, Rs. 40,000/- (Rupees forty thousand) per acre for the homestead land and Rs. 13,602.17/- (Rupees thirteen thousand six hundred two and seventeen paise) per acre for the unsurveyed area. In that award, the petitioner’s name was mentioned at Sl. No. 22 and 67 in the list of awardees and total amount of compensation awarded for her lands was shown as Rs. 2,13,010/- (Rupees two lakh thirty thousand and ten) only. 5. Though not satisfied with the compensation amount but having suffered for so many years due to the taking over of her lands for the purpose of construction of canal, to meet her immediate needs received the compensation amount on 12.06.2009 but submitted an application stating her protest and at the same time requesting for reference to Civil Court. 5. Though not satisfied with the compensation amount but having suffered for so many years due to the taking over of her lands for the purpose of construction of canal, to meet her immediate needs received the compensation amount on 12.06.2009 but submitted an application stating her protest and at the same time requesting for reference to Civil Court. Thereafter, the petitioner in continuation of her application mentioned above submitted an application dated 20.11.2009 to the Collector Land Acquisition under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 requesting him to refer to the Civil Judge concerned for just determination of the value of her lands and the amount of compensation to be paid to her. The Deputy Commissioner cum-Collector, Churachandpur District, however, rejected her application on the sole ground that since she had received the award, her case can no longer be refer to the Civil Judge under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, vide his office communication dated 20.01.2010. 6. Learned counsel for the respondents raised only one point of objection to the writ petition, that is the writ petition was filed beyond reasonable time, therefore it ought to be dismissed. In order to appreciate better, the submission of both the learned counsel for the parties, the provision of Section 18 of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 is given here below: “Section 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 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. (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.” In the above given provision of law, no time limit is given for filing a petition against such rejection praying for reference to Civil Court. The time limit given is only for submission of application praying for reference to Civil Court. Clause 2(a) and (b) clearly provides for the same. Since there is no other provision in the Act providing such time limit, we have to only refer to the provision of Limitation Act. In the Schedule of the Limitation Act, no period of limitation is prescribed for filing a petition against such order. Therefore, the residuary provision as given in the Article 137 of the Schedule of the Limitation Act gets attracted, wherein it is provided that any other application for which no period of limitation is provided elsewhere in this division, period of limitation is 3 (three) years and time from which period begins to run is when the right to apply accrues. In this case, the application of the petitioner for reference to Civil Court was rejected and the same was communicated through a letter of the office of the Deputy Commissioner dated 20.01.2010. The present writ petition was filed on 6.6.2013. Counting the period between the two dates and years given, there is a delay of a little more than 4 (four) months when the petition was filed. The petitioner has however, explained the reason for the delay by stating that she is a rustic and poor tribal woman, who hails from far away remote hill village having very bad communication facility and therefore, she could not come to Imphal to contact a lawyer to help her file the present petition in time. The petitioner has however, explained the reason for the delay by stating that she is a rustic and poor tribal woman, who hails from far away remote hill village having very bad communication facility and therefore, she could not come to Imphal to contact a lawyer to help her file the present petition in time. She also stated that since her land was taken away for the project, she had to work very hard for maintaining her family, therefore, she was a little late in filing this petition. Considering the reasons given for the delay, and weighing 4 (four) months delay against the ends of justice, the poor petitioner is seeking for her land which is perhaps the only income generating property she had but taken away for public purpose, I am of the opinion that the latter outweighs the former. For the poor rustic tribal woman, whose land as stated above is perhaps the only land she owned has been taken away, reference to Civil Court is a last resort to get just and equitable compensation from the Government who acquired her land for public purpose. Therefore, denying such last opportunity could cause an irreparable loss to her, whereas, for the respondents they have nothing to lose except that some time may be taken in determining what is just and equitable compensation for the land of the poor women by Civil Court. In view of the above, the objection raised by the learned counsel for the respondents on the ground of delay cannot be upheld. 7. Further, the reason given for rejection of the petition that is, since the petitioner has received the compensation the need for reference to Civil Court doesn’t arise anymore does not appear to be correct and acceptable. As stated above, the petitioner on the day she received the amount submitted an application to the Collector, Land Acquisition, Churachandpur, in which she protested against the value of the land and the amount of the award given to her and at the same time requested for reference under the relevant provisions of law. The wordings of her application are given here below: “To, The Collector, Land Acquisition, Churachandpur. Subject:- Acceptance of the amount under protest in connection with award/order, dated 20th May, 2009, bearing No. DC (CCP)/LA/2006-7. The wordings of her application are given here below: “To, The Collector, Land Acquisition, Churachandpur. Subject:- Acceptance of the amount under protest in connection with award/order, dated 20th May, 2009, bearing No. DC (CCP)/LA/2006-7. Sir, With reference to the above award/order bearing No. DC (CCP)/LA/2006-7, dated 20.05.2009 the acquisition of my land Tuithapi Hill land while appear at Sl. No. 22 and 67 of the statement of calculation of value of land affected by right side main canal of Khuga Dam from 15 km to 20 km (i.e., Annexure to the award) the value of the land etc., are too small and I accept the award amount under protest on this day the 12th June 2009 at the office of the Deputy Commissioner, Churachandpur for reference under the relevant provision of Law. The 12th June, 09 Yours faithfully, Sd/- T. Ngaizavung Chief of Tuithapi Village.” It is crystal clear from the wordings of the application given above that the petitioner, though accepted the award amount did so under protest. It is now a settled position of law that the claimants who received compensation under protest and who make applications under Section 18(1) are entitled to seek a reference. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Land Acquisition Officer Vs. Shivabai and Others as reported in (1997) 9 SCC 710 affirmed this position of law. In view of this settled position of law, the reason given by the Deputy Commissioner, in the case of the petitioner, for denying reference to Civil Court under Section 18 of Land Acquisition Act, 1894, cannot be sustained in law. Once such application under Section 18(1) is made, the Deputy Commissioner is duty bound to refer the same to the Civil Court. This provision of law is mandatory in nature and it is a part of the process of Land Acquisition under Land Acquisition Act. The purpose of this provision of law is to give opportunity to both the claimant and the Government acquiring the land for just and equitable determination of the issues regarding the measurement of the land, the amount of the compensation, the person to whom it is payable or the apportionment of the compensation among the persons interested. Therefore, denying a claimant for such reference would amount to non-completion of the process of Land Acquisition proceeding undertaken by the authority empowered to undertake such land acquisition for public purpose. Therefore, denying a claimant for such reference would amount to non-completion of the process of Land Acquisition proceeding undertaken by the authority empowered to undertake such land acquisition for public purpose. The consequence of denying such prayer for reference may, therefore, amount to denial of the opportunity of being heard as contemplated in the Act. The Deputy Commissioner concerned, therefore, should have referred the case of the petitioner to the concerned Civil Court as requested by her. In view of the above, the order of the Deputy Commissioner rejecting the application of the petitioner to refer her case to Civil Court which was communicated vide his office letter dated 20.01.2010 No. DC (CCP)/LA/2005-3/1864 is quashed and he is directed to refer the case of the petitioner to Civil Court concerned under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order. With this, the writ petition is disposed. No order as to cost.