Judgment:
Jawahar Lal Gupta, J.
1. The petitioners seek a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to forward their application under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 to the Land Acquisition Court for determination of their entitlement to compensation. Admittedly, their land was acquired vide notification dated September 26, 1972 which was published in the Government Gazette dated October 3, 1972. It appears that the Collector gave the award on January 10, 1973. Aggrieved against the award, the petitioners submitted a petition under Section 18 of the Act on February 13, 1973. A copy of this petition has been produced on record as Annexure P-1. Their request for a reference to the Court was declined vide order dated September 19, 1973 on the ground that the application had been received in the office of the Land Acquisition Collector on February 22, 1973. A copy of this order with the written statement is Annexure R.1. The efforts of the petitioners for persuading the authorities to make a reference having failed and the notice sent by them having elicited no response, they have approached this Court through the present writ petition.
2. In the written statement filed on behalf of the respondents it has been averred that the intimation had been sent to the petitioners regarding the rejection of their request for making of the reference on the ground of limitation vide letters dated September 19, 1973 and January 10, 1978. In this situation, the respondents claim that a reference as prayed for by the petitioners cannot be made.
3. It is surprising that even though the respondents claim that the petitioners were conveyed the decision vide letters dated September 19, 1973 and January 10, 1978, yet no objection regarding delay has been raised in the written statement. In this situation, it appears extremely doubtful if the decision had actually been conveyed to the petitioners.
4. Mr. Mahesh Grover, learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the application having been sent on February 13, 1973, was actually within limitation. The mere fact that it was received in the office of the Collector on February 22, 1973, viz. a day after the expiry of the period of limitation, should not dis-en-title the petitioners to have their claim adjudicated upon. The learned counsel has placed reliance on the decision of D.K. Mahajan, J. in Dalip Singh v. The Land Acquisition Collector Drainage Department, Amritsar, 1974 P.L.J. 17. In this case following the decision of the Madras High Court in Ranganathan v. Revenue Divisional Officer Pattukottai, 1971 Madras Law Journal 167, his Lordship was pleased to hold that the application sent by post within the period of limitation could not be rejected on the ground that it had been received after the expiry of the period of limitation.
5. Respectfully following the view taken by his Lordships, I allow this writ petition. The respondents are directed to forward the application under Section 18 submitted by the petitioners to the appropriate Court for decision within one month from the receipt of a certified copy of this order. Since ho one has appeared on behalf of the respondent I make no order as to costs.