JUDGMENT H. C. P. Tripathi, J. - This writ petition is directed against an order of the Collector Jalaun refusing to refer the question of adequacy of compensation for the determination of the court on an objection under Section 18 of the land Acquisition Act. 2. The facts are these : 3. The petitioner's land to the tune of 24.87 acres in village Baghaura, district Jalaun was acquired under the Land Acquisition Act and the Collector awarded Rs. 4827.87 as compensation for the acquisition. Being dissatisfied with the acquisition and the inadequacy of the compensation, the petitioner made an application to the Collector under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, requiring that the matter be referred to the court for the determination of the amount of compensation. The Collector rejected the application and refused to refer the matter to the court because the application, in his opinion, contained "irrelevant matters and was not confined to the matters cited under Section 18 of the Act"; hence this writ petition. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has urged that the impugned order of the Col-lector is wholly illegal and that under the law he had no other option but to refer the matter to the court for the determination of the adequacy of the compensation. 5. There is force in this contention. 6. It is true that the application filed by the petitioner before the Collector was a lengthy one containing various irrelevant matters. But it is also true that the application raised the question of inadequacy of compensation and the correctness of the measurement and required the matter to be referred to the court for its decision under Section 18 of the Act. Section 18 (1) of the Act reads : "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 compensation, the persons to whom it is payable, or the apportionment of the compensation among the persons interested." 7. In terms of this section it is obvious that once an application is made by an interested person challenging the adequacy of the compensation or the 'measurement of the land, and requiring the same to be referred to the court for its determination, the Collector has no other option but to make the required reference. It is clear from the use of the word 'require' in the section that a duty is cast on the Collector when such an application is made to make the reference. I am supported in this view by a Division Bench decision of Orissa High Court reported in A. I. R. 1961 Orissa at page 39. 8. It will be noticed that the petitioner's application was in accordance with Section 18 because it raised questions of the inadequacy of the compensation and challenged the correctness of the measurement of the land. The Collector could have ignored the irrelvant matters mentioned in the application and should have referred the question of compensation and the objection relating to the measurement of the land for the determination of the court. 9. In the result this writ petition is allowed, the impugned order of the Collector, Jalaun dated 3-10-1963 is quashed and he is directed to refer the petitioner's application under Section 18 for the determination of the court as required by the Act. There will be no order as to costs.