JUDGMENT : Shalini Phansalkar Joshi, J. The applicant is the original claimant, whose claim petition filed under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, came to be dismissed by the Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Amravati vide judgment and order 2.5.2016 on the ground that it was barred by limitation. Hence, being aggrieved thereby, he has challenged the legality, validity and propriety of the impugned judgment and order. 2. Brief facts of the revision can be stated as follows: The petitioner was the owner and possessor of the plot No. 13, ad measuring 413 sq. mtr. and plot no. 24 ad measuring 315 sq. mtr., situated at Village Belora, Tq. Nandgaon, Distt. Amravati. These plots came to be acquired for the submergence area of the Bembla Project under Land Acquisition Case No. 28/47/1999-2000, in pursuance of the Notification issued under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act and published in the Government Gazette on 9.3.2000. The notice under section 9 was issued on 11.5.2002 and the award was passed on 10.5.2004. As per the petitioner, the notice under Section 12(2) of the Act was received by him on 2.8.2004. 3. Being not satisfied with the amount of compensation granted to him by the S.L.A.O., reference came to be filed before the Trial Court with a specific averment that he has received the notice on 2.8.2004 and the reference is filed immediately on 7.8.2004, therefore, it is within limitation. 4. This reference came to be resisted by the respondent herein raising various grounds including the ground that it was barred by limitation. 5. Accordingly, the Reference Court framed issues for its consideration and issue No. 4 was whether the Reference Petition was barred by limitation ? 6. In support of his case, petitioner examined himself and led the evidence of Devanand Parasramji Deulkar. In the light of this evidence, the Reference Court was pleased to hold that as petitioner himself has admitted in his cross examination that he has received the notice under section 12(2) of the Land Acquisition Act on 21.6.2004, whereas reference was filed on 7.8.2004, therefore it was beyond the period of six weeks and hence, it was barred by limitation. The reference court, in its judgment also considered the other issues about the valuation of the acquired plot and its compensation and on that aspect reference Court held the petitioner entitled for additional compensation. The reference court, in its judgment also considered the other issues about the valuation of the acquired plot and its compensation and on that aspect reference Court held the petitioner entitled for additional compensation. However, considering that Reference was held to be not within limitation, learned Reference Court dismissed the same with costs. 7. While challenging the impugned order of the Court, learned counsel for petitioner has submitted that the Reference Court has not properly appreciated the contentions. It is urged that as per the averments in the Reference Petition, notice under Section 12(2) of the Act was received by petitioner on 2.8.2004. Then only he came to know about the passing of Award and thereafter he has filed the Reference. It is further submitted that the respondent failed to prove that notice under Section 12(2) of the Act came to be served upon the petitioner on 21.6.2004 and there was no concrete or conclusive evidence on record to that effect. Thus, it is submitted that in the absence of evidence proving that the notice under Section 12(2) of the Act was received on 21.2.2004, the Reference Court has committed an error and illegality in holding that the reference was barred by limitation. 8. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No. 3 has submitted that petitioner himself has admitted in cross examination that he received notice under Section 12(2) of the Act on 21.6.2004. Hence, there was no question or no need of respondent adducing any evidence to that effect. In the light of the admission given by the petitioner that he has received the notice under Section 12(2) of the Act on 21.6.2004, the claim petition filed on 7.8.2004 was clearly barred by limitation hence, no fault can be found in the impugned order of the Reference Court. 9. At the time of hearing of this petition, learned counsel for petitioner has raised another ground of petitioner not receiving the copy of the award along with the notice under section 12(2) of the Act. 9. At the time of hearing of this petition, learned counsel for petitioner has raised another ground of petitioner not receiving the copy of the award along with the notice under section 12(2) of the Act. By placing reliance on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Premji Nathu v. State of Gujarat and Anr., AIR 2012 Supreme Court 1624, it is urged that if the notice under Section 12(2) of the Act is not accompanied with the copy of the Award, then as the claimant cannot effectively exercise his right filing the appeal, it cannot be said that reference is barred by limitation. According to learned counsel for petitioner, no evidence is adduced by the respondents to how that the notice under section 12(2) was accompanied with the copy of Award and in such situation this being the beneficial legislation, benefit should go to the petitioner and it has to be held the reference filed before the Reference Court was within the limitation. 10. As against this, learned counsel for respondents has submitted that the petitioner has never raised this contention before the Reference Court in the Reference Petition or in his evidence that notice under Section 12(2) was not accompanied with the copy of award and in such situation no onus or burden was shifted on the respondents to show or to prove that the copy of award was sent to the petitioner along the with the notice. According to learned counsel for respondents, therefore, in the absence of any pleading to that effect, the petitioner cannot take benefit of the judgment of Apex Court. 11. The only point which therefore, arises for my consideration in this revision is, whether the finding recorded by the Reference Court that reference is barred by limitation is just legal, and correct? 12. Before adverting to the facts of the case, which are already recorded herein above, it would be necessary to consider the law laid down by the Apex Court in the above referred case of Premji Nathu v. State of Gujarat (Supra). 12. Before adverting to the facts of the case, which are already recorded herein above, it would be necessary to consider the law laid down by the Apex Court in the above referred case of Premji Nathu v. State of Gujarat (Supra). In this case after analysis of the provisions of section 12(1) and 12(2) of the Land Acquisition Act, it was held in para11 that, "11.....When a notice under section 12(2) of the Act is received, the landowner or person interested is made aware of all relevant particulars of the award which enables him to decide whether he should seek reference or not. On the other hand, if he only comes to know that an award has been made, he would require further time to make enquiries or secure copies so that he can as certain the relevant particulars of the award. What needs to be emphasised is that along with the notice issued under Section 12(2) of the Act the land owner who is not present or is not represented before the Collector at the time of making of award should be supplied with a copy thereof, so that he may effectively exercise his right under Section 18(1) to seek reference to the Court." After referring to its earlier decisions in "Harish Chandra Raj Singh v. Land Acquisition officer, AIR 1961 SC 1500 ", "State of Punjab v. Qaisar Jehan Begum, AIR 1963 SC 1604 " and "Bhagwan Das v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2010) 3 SCC 545 ", it was further held that, when the award is communicated to the party under Section 12(2) of the Act, the party must be obviously attributed with knowledge of the contents of the award, whether he reads it or not. When a person interested makes an application for reference seeking the benefit of six months' period from the date of knowledge, the initial onus is on him to prove that he was not present when the Award was made, that he did not receive any notice under section 12 (2) of the Act and he had no knowledge of the contents of the award during period of six months period. Once the initial onus is discharged by the claimant/person interested, then it is for the Land Acquisition Officer to establish that the person interested was present either in person or through his representative, when the award was made or that he had received the notice under Section 12(2) of the Act or that he had knowledge of the contents of the award. 13. In para15 of the judgment, the Hon'ble Apex Court held: "Careful reading of the averments contained in paragraph 2 of the application filed by the appellant under Section 18(1) shows that the notice issued by the Collector under Section 12(2) was served upon him on 22.2.1985. Thereafter, his advocate obtained certified copy of the award and filed application dated 8.4.1985 for making a reference to the Court. This implies that copy of the award had not been sent to the appellant along with the notice and without that he could not have effectively made an application for seeking reference. On behalf of the State Government, no evidence was produced before the Reference Court to show that copy of the award was sent to the appellant along with the notice. Unfortunately, while deciding issue No. 3, this aspect has been totally ignored by the Reference Court which mechanically concluded that the application filed on 8.4.1985 was beyond the time specified in Section 18(2)(b) of the Act. 14. Thus, the very foundation on which these observations are made by the Hon'ble Apex Court, is that there was clear averment made in the application under Section 18(1) that after the notice under Section 12(2) was served, the certified copy of the award was obtained. It thus indicated that copy of the award was not sent along with the notice. 15. Herein the case, there is not a single averment either in the petition filed before the Reference Court or even in this revision that as copy of the award was not accompanied with the notice under Section 12(2) of the Act, the petitioner could not effectively exercise his right to seek the reference under Section 18(1) of the Act. 15. Herein the case, there is not a single averment either in the petition filed before the Reference Court or even in this revision that as copy of the award was not accompanied with the notice under Section 12(2) of the Act, the petitioner could not effectively exercise his right to seek the reference under Section 18(1) of the Act. Even in evidence before the Court petitioner has not stated that he did not receive the copy of the award along with the notice under Section 12(2) of the Act and therefore his Advocate has to obtain certified copy and that was the reason why there was delay in filing the reference petition. As a matter of fact, the petitioner is not even acknowledging that there was any delay in filing the reference. Therefore, there was no explanation offered by him for such delay. He has come before the Court with the case that he has received the notice under section 12(2) of the Land Acquisition Act on 2.8.2004 and hence the reference filed on 7.8.2004 is within time. However, in his cross examination he has admitted that he has received the notice under Section 12(2) on 21.6.2004. In view of this admission the Reference Court has no option but to hold that Reference filed on 7.8.2004 was not within sixty days and therefore, barred by limitation. This finding therefore is arrived at by the Reference Court on the factual aspects presented before it. Hence, it cannot be called as perverse, illegal or improper so as to warrant interference therein. In the absence of such pleadings that the notice under Section 12(2) of the Act was not accompanied with the copy of the award and therefore petition had to apply for certified copy of the Award and that was the cause for the delay, the reliance placed by the learned Advocate for petitioner on the above said judgment cannot be of much assistance. As stated above, in the particular facts of that case, with the averments clearly revealing that, after the receipt of notice under section 12(2) of the Act, the Advocate of the appellant obtained copy of the award, which proved that the copy of the award was not sent to the appellant, it was held that the onus was shifted on the State Government to show that the copy of the Award was sent to the appellant along with the notice. Herein the case when petitioner is not coming before the Court with the case that the notice was not accompanied with the copy of the award and that was the ground of delay, there is no question of any onus being shifted on the respondent to show that the notice was accompanied with the copy of the Award. 16. Therefore, on the basis of factual aspects presented before the Reference Court, the Reference Court has not committed any illegality in dismissing the reference being barred by law. 17. At the same time, this Court has to bear in mind that the Land Acquisition Act is a beneficial piece of legislation and it needs to be interpreted in favour of the claimant but at the same time, respondent's rights also cannot be ignored and a just balance is required to be struck. Therefore, as even the delay of years together is condoned by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the case of Imratlal v. Land Acquisition Officer, 2013 DGL5 (SC) 1065, however, such delay was condoned and petition was held to be maintainable, subject to condition of petitioner not being entitled to claim interest on the amount enhanced by the Reference Court. To this limited extent, such relief can be granted to the petitioner. 18. As a result, though the revision on the aspect of the limitation needs to be dismissed and accordingly has to be dismissed, considering the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Imratlal (supra) the matter needs to be remanded to the Reference Court for deciding afresh, the reference on merits treating it to be within limitation, subject to condition that petitioner will not be entitled to interest from the date of award dated 10.5.2004 till today. To this limited extent and with this direction, the revision is disposed of. 19. To this limited extent and with this direction, the revision is disposed of. 19. As the reference petition in this case is of the year 2004, it is expected that Reference Court shall decide it as expeditiously as possible and preferably within six months. Both the parties are directed to appear before Reference Court on 7.8.2017. Order accordingly.