ORDER 1. The sad state of affairs in the matter of payment of compensation and disposal of objections has been highlighted in this writ petition. The petitioner has prayed for quashing of acquisition proceedings and for restraining the opposite parties from interfering with the possession of the petitioners in respect of Khasra Plot No. 136 in village Majholi, Pargana and district Moradabad - and has further prayed to direct the opposite parties to pay compensation to them in lieu of acquisition of their land and refer the matter of payment of compensation to the Tribunal constituted under S. 64 of the Act. It has been further prayed that opposite parties may be restrained from taking possession of the land from the petitioners and prevent its vesting in opposite parties. 2. On 1-7-77 opposite parties 5 to 12 entered into a registered agreement for sale of an area of 51 acres over plot No. 136. The petitioner were also delivered possession and since then they claim to be in possession over the same. From the sale deed it appears that opposite parties 5 to 12 purchased the said land from one Sint. Karuna Mathur in the year 1965 and new number of the same was given during consolidation operations. According to the petitioners they learnt that in Amar Ujala, a daily newspaper a notice was published on 9-10-82 under S. 28 of the Act regarding acquisition of said plot. The petitioners filed objection in the office of Housing Commissioner dated 17-9-82 under S. 30 of the Act. There being master plan of Moradabad, the petitioners also filed objection to the master plan addressed to the Chairman, Mordabad Development Authority and on 30-5-83 they received a notice from the Parishad in connection with their objections dated 18-10-82. The petitioners filed their affidavit on 9-6-83 in support of their objection in the office of Executive Engineer, Moradabad mentioning therein that they were the owners in possession of aforesaid khasra plot No. 136. 3. On 21-6-85 the petitioners submitted an application before the Special Land Acquisition Officer stating therein that section 17(1) of the Act had wrongly been invoked and the petitioners had no other land except the land in dispute. They also requested for adjournment to file documentary evidence to give correct market price and in the end it was prayed that the land may be released from acquisition. 4. They also requested for adjournment to file documentary evidence to give correct market price and in the end it was prayed that the land may be released from acquisition. 4. According to the petitioners the work was earlier looked after by the Special Land Acquisition Officer, Avas Vikas Parishad at Bareilly and the record of acquisition proceedings is now with the Special Land Acquisition Officer at Lucknow. On 21-8-86 the petitioner submitted an application before the Special Land Acquisition Officer, Bareilly with the prayer that in case khasra plot No. 136 was acquired, compensation for the same be paid to them and not to anyone else. The said application was received in his office on 21-8-85 with which a copy of sale deed dated 29-8-78 was also annexed which was executed by opposite parties 5 to 10 in favour of the petitioners. Despite that the petitioner learnt that thereafter the Special Land Acquisition Officer of Parishad at Bareilly paid Rs. 1,75,000/- towards part compensation for acquisition of land to opposite parties 5 to 12. Despite the fact that he was aware that the opposite parties had no right, title and interest over the land. Again on 15-12-86 second instalment of Rs. 8697.07 was paid to each of opposite parties 5'to 12. 5. The petitioner has contended that when the applications were before the Special Land Acquisition Officer regarding their claim, he instead of making payment to opposite parties was to refer the matter to the Tribunal constituted unders. 64 of the Act. 6. The case has been contested by the State and a counter affidavit has been filed. In the counter affidavit it has been contended that payment was made to the opposite parties as their names were entered in revenue records and it was not paid arbitrarily. In the counter affidavit the execution of sale deed in favour of petitioners or their ownership on the basis of sale deed has not been disputed. Avas Vikash Parishad has not filed any counter affidavit denying allegations made by the petitioners. It has been stated that the petitioner did not file any paper regarding title etc. from the date of notification till the date of payment of compensation and that they never put any objection before the Special Land Acquisition Officer. Avas Vikash Parishad has not filed any counter affidavit denying allegations made by the petitioners. It has been stated that the petitioner did not file any paper regarding title etc. from the date of notification till the date of payment of compensation and that they never put any objection before the Special Land Acquisition Officer. The filing of application and copy of sale deed by the petitioners before the Special Land Acquisition Officer has not been denied in the counter affidavit. 7. From the facts stated above it is clear that the petitioners had filed an application before the Avas Vikas Parishad and even before the Special Land Acquisition Officer and the petitioners claimed compensation and in support of their right and title filed sale deed and despite all this, compensation was paid to the opposite parties 5 to 12 in two instalments. 8. Opposite party No. I has put in appearance before this Court through counsel. While opposite party No. 7 prayed for three days time to file counter affidavit but no counter affidavit has been filed as yet. 9. The petitioners who are interested persons engaged their counsel for showing that they purchased the land from previous owner and the previous owner ceased to have any right over it and as such it was incumbent upon the Land Acquisition Officer to make an enquiry into the matter and thereafter pay compensation. The compensation has been paid even without referring the matter before the Tribunal which is in violation of law. If the State or its Officer has paid compensation to a person who has no right to receive it, it is for them to be blamed for it and the rightful owner cannot be allowed to suffer. The matter should have been referred to the Tribunal. 10. In view of above, the writ petition is allowed in part. A mandamus is issued to the opposite parties 1 to 3 not to interfere or Cause interference in possession of the petitioners till the compensation in respect of said land is not paid to the petitioners and a mandamus is issued to the opposite parties to refer the matter to the Tribunal constituted under S. 64 of the Act within a period of three weeks. There appears to be no reason why the Tribunal will not decide the matter within a period of six months from the date of its reference before it and order for payment of compensation to the petitioners, if their right and title over the land in question is proved. There will he no order as to costs.