JUDGMENT : Devan Ramachandran, J. The petitioner, whose property had been acquired by the first respondent, impugns Exhibit P13 order, as per which his application for reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, was rejected holding it to be beyond time. The petitioner asserts that his application was well within time and that the authority has rejected it without proper consideration of relevant factors. 2. I have heard Sri.Suresh Kumar Kodoth, the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for the respondents. 3. I have examined Exhibit P13 order. It is a very cryptic order rejecting the claim of the petitioner merely on the ground that it has been made by him beyond time. Even though the does not say it, I believe that the Tahsildar as gone by the date of the award to find that the application of the petitioner is beyond time. The award was issued on 24.06.1999 and taking that to be the relevant date, the application made by the petitioner for reference, namely Exhibit P12, made only in the year 2011, would seem to have hit by limitation. 4. At first blush this might look in order. However, on a examination of all the factors involved in this case, I am drawn to the irresistible conclusion that Exhibit P12 cannot find sustenance in law. This is because after the award was passed, the authorities refused to pay the compensation to the petitioner, since he did not produce documents to show his claim over the land to receive payment of compensation. This finally led to several proceedings which culminated in Exhibit P10 order, wherein the first respondent sanctioned payment of Rs. 51,179/- by reviving the elapsed deposit in the Treasury for being paid to the petitioner. The petitioner, in pursuance to Exhibit P10, received the compensation under protest on 25.03.2011, which is evidenced through the copy of the Treasury Receipt produced in this writ petition as Exhibit P11. Obviously therefore, the relevant date for consideration by the authority, who issued Exhibit P13 order, ought to have been 25.03.2011 or at the worst 14.02.2011, being the date of Exhibit P10 order. The petitioner has preferred Exhibit P12 application for reference under Section 18 on 20.04.2011. By no stretch of imagination can one say that this was beyond the period of limitation. The petitioner has preferred Exhibit P12 application for reference under Section 18 on 20.04.2011. By no stretch of imagination can one say that this was beyond the period of limitation. I am fortified in my view by Exhibit P14 judgment of this Court, wherein, another learned Single Judge has taken the same view and ordered the competent authority to cause a reference. 5. In such view of the matter, I have no hesitation in quashing Exhibit P13 order and direct the second respondent to take up Exhibit P12 application of the petitioner and cause a reference to be made under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act to the Court of competent jurisdiction as expeditiously possible but not later than one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. I do so. 6. The writ petition is ordered as above. In the facts and circumstances of the case, I make no order as to costs and the parties are directed to suffer their respective costs.