JUDGMENT : M.R. SHAH, J. 1. Rule. Shri Dhawan Jayswal, learned Assistant Government Pleader waives service of notice of Rule on behalf of the respondent State. In the facts and circumstances of the case and with the consent of the learned advocates for the respective parties, the present petition is taken up for final hearing today. 2. By way of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed to quash and set aside the impugned communication dated 12.03.2015, by which, the application of the petitioner claiming to be the heir and legal representative of the original land owner made under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 has been rejected / filed on the ground of limitation. 3. It is the case on behalf of the petitioner that original land owner was never served with the notice under Section 12(2) of the Land Acquisition Act. It is also the case on behalf of the petitioner that original land owner was also not served with the copy of the award earlier. It is submitted that therefore, the respondent no.2 ha materially erred in not making reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act on the ground of limitation. Relying upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Premji Nathu vs. State of Gujarat and Anr reported in (2012) 5 SCC 250 , it is requested to allow the present petition, quash and set aside impugned order passed by the respondent no.2 refusing to make Reference under Section 18 of the Act on the ground of limitation and consequently to direct the respondents, more particularly, respondent no.2 to make Reference to the appropriate Court / Reference Court. 4. Shri Jayswal, learned AGP is not in a position to satisfy the Court that at any point of time earlier, original land owner was served with the notice under Section 12(2) of the Act. Nothing is pointed out that original land owners was even served with the copy of the award earlier. However, has submitted that if this Court is inclined to allow the petition and direct the respondent no.2 to make a Reference, it may be suitably observe that the petitioner may not be entitled to statutory interest and / or other benefits for the period between 12.03.2015 till present Special Civil Application is filed i.e. November 2017. 5. However, has submitted that if this Court is inclined to allow the petition and direct the respondent no.2 to make a Reference, it may be suitably observe that the petitioner may not be entitled to statutory interest and / or other benefits for the period between 12.03.2015 till present Special Civil Application is filed i.e. November 2017. 5. Shri Nangesh, learned advocate for the petitioner has stated at the bar that the petitioner is agreeable to the aforesaid and if the petitioner is denied the statutory interest and other benefits for the period between March 2015 to November 2017. 6. Having heard the learned advocates for the respective parties and considering the fact that nothing is on record that at no point of time earlier, original land owner was served with the notice under Section 12(2) of the Act and / or served with the award considering the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Premji Nathu (supra), the respondent no.2 was not justified in refusing to make Reference under Section 18 of the Act on the ground of limitation. Under the circumstances, the impugned order passed by the respondent no.2 refusing to make Reference under Section 18 of the Act deserves to be quashed and set aside. However, at the same time when the impugned order was passed in the month of March 2015 and the present petition has been preferred in the month of November 2017, the petitioner (as agreed) shall not be entitled to interest / statutory interest and / or other benefits for the period between March 2015 to November 2017. 7. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, present petition succeeds in part. The impugned order passed by the respondent no.2 dated 12.03.2015 refusing to make Reference under Section 18 of the Act is hereby quashed and set aside. The respondents, more particularly, respondent no.2 herein is hereby directed to make Reference to the District Court under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act within a period of six weeks from today. However, it is observed and as agreed by the learned advocate for the petitioner recorded herein above, the petitioner shall not be entitled to any interest/ statutory interest and / or other benefits for the period between March 2015 to November 2017. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent. No costs. Direct service is permitted.