JUDGMENT : 1. Heard Shri M.K. Choudhury, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Shri A.U. Ahmed, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Ms. S. Sharma, learned State Counsel for the State respondents whereas Shri R. Borpujari, learned Standing Counsel, Revenue Department has represented the respondent nos. 1, 2 & 3. Shri B. Gogoi, learned Standing Counsel, PWD is also present. 2. Considering the nature of the grievance expressed and also the fact that the State respondents have filed their affidavit and the records have also been produced, this matter is taken up for final disposal at the admission stage. 3. The facts projected in the writ petition is that a Land Acquisition Proceeding was initiated under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (herein after the Act) in which after the notification under Section 4 of the Act, the declaration under Section 6 of the Act was published on 07.10.2013. The Acquisition case was registered as L.A. Case No. 10/2013-14 and the acquisition was for construction of Patharkandi bye-pass under Mouza Moina, Part-I in the district of Karimganj. As per the petitioners, under Section 11 A of the Act, the Award was required to be published within 2 (two) years. However, the petitioners contend that such Award was not published and under those circumstances, the petitioners contend that the Acquisition Proceeding had lapsed and in that event, a fresh proceeding has to be drawn up. It is the further case of the petitioners that since the earlier Act of 1894 is replaced by the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act of 2013, the fresh proceeding has to be under the 2013 Act. It is the further case of the petitioners that since the earlier Act of 1894 is replaced by the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act of 2013, the fresh proceeding has to be under the 2013 Act. The following prayers have been made in this petition: “Under the circumstances stated above it is most humbly prayed that your Lordships may be pleased to admit this petition, call for the records and issued a Rule calling upon the respondents to show cause as to why:- A) A writ in the nature of nature of certiorari shall not be issued in setting aside the certiorari in setting aside and quashing the Land Acquisition Case No. 10/2012-13 in the office of the Deputy Commissioner, Karimganj, and /or; B) A writ in the nature of mandamus shall not be issued directing the respondent authorities to issue fresh notification for acquisition of the land belonging to the petitioners situated at Mouza Moina, Part-I, Porgonah Jafargarh, in Karimganj district, under Section 11 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, as provided under Section 24 of the said Act and accordingly to do thing that are required to be done under Chapter-IV of the said Act and accordingly to make payment of compensation to the petitioners in accordance with the law; and / or; C) Such further and other orders shall not be passed as your Lordships may deem fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of the case in the interest of justice; and; D) To make the Rule absolute on perusal of records and after hearing the parties to the case.” 4. Shri Choudhury, the learned Senior Counsel has submitted that the Act of 1894 stipulates that the Award has to be made by the Collector within 2 (two) years from the date of declaration under Section 6 of the Act and in the instant case, such declaration was of 07.10.2013. He, accordingly, submits that the Award was required to be published on or before 07.10.2015 which according to the petitioners was not done. The learned Senior Counsel has also drawn the attention of this Court to notices purportedly issued under Section 12 (2) of the Act directing the parties to receive the compensation from the concerned office. He, accordingly, submits that the Award was required to be published on or before 07.10.2015 which according to the petitioners was not done. The learned Senior Counsel has also drawn the attention of this Court to notices purportedly issued under Section 12 (2) of the Act directing the parties to receive the compensation from the concerned office. The said notices were issued on 12.08.2017 and the petitioners claimed that it was only on receipt of such notices that they could learn about culmination of the proceedings. The learned Senior Counsel submits that the petitioners have not received the amount of compensation and according to them since the earlier proceeding has lapsed, a fresh proceeding is required to be initiated under the Act of 2013. 5. Per contra, Ms. S. Sharma, learned State Counsel submits that the presumption of the petitioners that no Award has been published is belied by the fact that the notices under Section 12 (2) of the Act which have been annexed to this writ petition itself makes it clear that an Award has been published out of which different amounts were offered to the petitioners. The learned State Counsel accordingly submits that the primary contention of the petitioners is incorrect, there is no cause of action to be adjudicated and accordingly the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. The learned State Counsel has also produced the records of the case in original. 6. Endorsing the submission of the learned State Counsel, Shri R. Borpujari, learned Standing Counsel, Revenue Department submits that the entire foundation of the case projected by the petitioners is fallacious and factually erroneous. The learned Standing Counsel has submitted that while the petitioners have proceeded with the presumption that no Award has been published, by referring to the records of the case, it has been submitted that the Award was published in due time on 04.06.2015 by following the mandates of law, more specifically those laid down in Section 11 of the Act. He further submits that the records do not contain the copy of the notices purportedly issued under Section 12(2) of the Act which have been annexed to the petition. The learned Standing Counsel submits that under those facts and circumstances, the instant petition is liable to be dismissed. 7. He further submits that the records do not contain the copy of the notices purportedly issued under Section 12(2) of the Act which have been annexed to the petition. The learned Standing Counsel submits that under those facts and circumstances, the instant petition is liable to be dismissed. 7. This Court has given its anxious thoughts and consideration to the rival submission made by the learned counsel for the parties. The records in original produced before this Court has also been carefully perused. 8. The primary contention made in the petition as observed above is that since no Award has been published within the time envisaged under Section 11 A of the Act, the proceeding has lapsed and the petitioners have prayed for initiating a fresh proceeding under the 2013 Act. For ready reference, the provisions of Section 11 A of the L.A. Act, 1894 are extracted herein below:- 11A Period within which an Award shall be made.— (1) The Collector shall make an Award under section 11 within a period of two years from the date of the publication of the declaration and if no Award is made within that period, the entire proceedings for the acquisition of the land shall lapse: Provided that in a case where the said declaration has been published before the commencement of the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act, 1984 (68 of 1984), the Award shall be made within a period of two years from such commencement. Explanation. — In computing the period of two years referred to in this section, the period during which any action or proceeding to be taken in pursuance of the said declaration is stayed by an order of a Court shall be excluded. 9. A careful perusal of the records however would disclose that the Award has been duly published on 04.06.2015 prior to which a Draft Award was sent to the Government for approval which was also done. The Award also contains a list of Awardees with the amount specified. The total amount as per the Award is Rs. 47,07445/-(Rupees Forty Seven Lakh Seven Thousand Four Hundred Forty Five). 10. The Award also contains a list of Awardees with the amount specified. The total amount as per the Award is Rs. 47,07445/-(Rupees Forty Seven Lakh Seven Thousand Four Hundred Forty Five). 10. Examining the date of publication of the Award with the date of declaration which is 07.10.2013, it is found that the Award is very much within time and therefore, the edifice of the writ petition by which the consequence of Section 11 A of the Act was tried to be brought in falls. It transpires from the records that the provisions of the Act were duly followed and in this writ petition, there is no allegation regarding violation of any other provision except for the allegation that the Award was not published within the time. 11. In the course of the submission, it was pointed out from the side of the respondents that the notices under Section 12 (2) were not found with the records. 12. Though the said statement appears to be correct, the records is only up to the stage of the publication of the Award and giving notices to the parties interested to receive their respective shares in the Award. The notices under Section 12 (2) of the Act which have been annexed to the writ petition are dated 12.08.2017 which is of a later date and therefore, it cannot be said with certainty that no such notices exist in the records. It appears that a separate record might have been maintained for the aforesaid purpose. 13. Without going into that aspect of the matter, the question now arises is regarding the rights of the petitioners under Section 18 of the Act. 14. Section 18 gives the right to any person interested who has not accepted the Award to write to the collector requiring a reference to be made to the appropriate Court. For ready reference, Section 18 of the Act is extracted herein below: 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; (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. 15. “Court” has also been defined under Section 3 (d) as per which it means the Principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction. 16. As indicated above, limitation has been prescribed in Section 18 (2) as per which, for a person who was present or represented before the Collector at the time of making the Award, the application has to be made within 6 (six) weeks from the date of the Collector’s Award and in other cases within 6 weeks from the date of receipt of notice under Section 12 (2) or within 6 months from the date of the Collector’s Award which period shall first expire. 17. In the instant case, the notices under Section 12(2) of the Act were dated 12.08.2017 and therefore, the application for making a reference should have been made on or within 6 weeks from 12.08.2017 or 6 months from the date of the Award which Award is earlier and in both the cases, the said period however has expired. The learned Senior Counsel has submitted that since the entire acquisition was a matter of challenge in this present writ petition, the period of limitation as prescribed in Section 18 (2) of the Act may be condoned and the petitioners, if so advised be permitted to put their application before the Collector to make a reference within a period of 6 weeks from today. 18. Both Shri R. Borpujari, learned Standing Counsel, Revenue Department, and Ms. 18. Both Shri R. Borpujari, learned Standing Counsel, Revenue Department, and Ms. S. Sharma, learned State Counsel, submits that though the aforesaid proposal is not contemplated in the provisions of Section 18 of the Act, in the interest of justice, direction to that effect may be granted with however a rider that the petitioner would require to establish their right and interest over the land with proper description before the Collector and only in the event when the Collector is satisfied with such an application, the reference may be made to the Competent Court. 19. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, while this Court does not find any merit in this writ petition, liberty is however granted to the petitioners to approach the Collector by filing a written application for consideration to make a reference under Section 18 of the Act. Since the time prescribed under Section 18 (2) of the Act has long expired, by taking into consideration the aforesaid provision, the application may be permitted to be filed within a period of 6 weeks from today. Further, the application is required to state all details of the land involved with the respective petitioners and their interest and right over the said along with supporting documents. The Collector is also required to apply his independent mind to the application so filed along with the materials to support the said application before taking a decision to make a reference to the competent Court under Section 18 of the Act. 20. It is needless to state that the application are not to be rejected on the ground of limitation but are to be considered on its own merits and in case the same are rejected on any other ground, the same should be specified in the form of a speaking order. The Collector while disposing of the application is also required to give the petitioners an opportunity of personal hearing. 21. The records are handed over back to Ms. S. Sharma, the learned State Counsel.