Mootham, C.J. - (1.) This is an appeal from an order of a learned single Judge of this Court dated 22-2-1955, granting certain reliefs on a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. The relevant facts are not in dispute and can be stated shortly.
(2.) Certain property belonging to the petitioner was acquired under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894; and on the 25th March, 1951, the Collector made an award in accordance with the provisions of Section 11 of the Act. No notice of his award was given by the Collector to the petitioner under Sub-section (2) of Section 12, and the petitioner's case is that he did not come to know that the award had been made and filed until 13-1-1953. The petitioner was not prepared to accept the award and on 24-2-1953, he filed an application under Section 18 of the Act before the Collector that the matter be referred to the Court. This application was rejected by the Collector ,on the same day as being beyond time. It is not clear whether, as alleged by the appellants, the petitioner was immediately informed that his application had been rejected or whether, as stated by the petitioner, he ascertained this fact only at the end. of October 1953. On the 21-12-1053. he filed the writ petition out of which this appeal arises. In that petition the relief sought by the petitioner was the issue of a writ of certiorari quashing the entire proceedings culminating in the award or, alternatively, the issue of a writ of mandamus commanding the first respondent, the Deputy Land Acquisition Officer, Colonisation Scheme, Moradabad, "to give an opportunity to the petitioner to substantiate his application for reference and dispose of the same in accordance with the law."
(3.) The learned Judge allowed the petition. He was of opinion that the time within, which an application under Section 18 had to be made began to run from the date upon which the petitioner became aware that an award had been made. The application made by the petitioner on 24-2-1953, was accordingly filed within time, and he directed the second respondent, the State of Uttar Pradesh, to consider that application in accordance with law.;