A.N. Varma, J. - (1.) Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned standing counsel, we are of the opinion that this petition can be disposed of finally at the admission stage.
(2.) The present petition is directed against an order dated 3.2.1988 passed by the Collector, Mirzapur rejecting an application filed by the petitioner for reference to the Civil Court under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. The order reads as follows: "I have seen the application filed by Sri Hiralal ets. The application under Sd./illegible S.L.A.O."
(3.) The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioners had filed an application before the Collector, a true copy whereof Annexure 2 to the writ petition, stating that an ex parte award was made against them on 24.8.1985 of which they could get knowledge only in January/February, 1987. It is further stated that this was because of the fact that the father of the applicant had died. In the application there is a prayer that the applicant be given the benefit of Section 5 of the Limitation Act. the Collector has disposed of that application, it is apparent without applying his mind as to whether on the ground asserted by the petitioners the delay, if any in filing the application under Section 18 was liable to be condoned, Learned counsel who substituted that the period of limitation prescribed under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act is computed from the date of the knowledge of the award. This contention is correct. We are, however, expressing no opinion as to when the petitioner derived knowledge of the award. That is a matter which should be considered by the Collector. The Collector has given no reasons in support of his order nor has he made any effort to consider the question whether in the facts and circumstance of the present case, the delay in filing, application under Section 18 is liable to be condoned.;