JUDGMENT U.C. Srivastava, J. - An objection has been raised on behalf of the opposite parties that against the judgment passed by the District Judge in reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act only an appeal under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act lies and no writ is maintainable. On behalf of the petitioners it was contended that U. P. State Electricity Board was not a party to the reference, as such in has got a right to file writ petition. On behalf of the opposite parties a reference to the case of Santosh Kumar and others V. Central Warehousing (Corporation and another ( AIR 1986 SC 1164 ) was made. In the said case because of the refusal by the Collector to make a reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, instead of filing an appeal, a writ petition was filed. The court observed: In our view there cannot be any possible doubt that the scheme of the Act is that, apart from fraud, corruption or collusion, the amount of compensation awarded by the Collector under S. 11 of the Act may not be questioned in any proceeding either by the Government or by the Company or Local authority at whose instance the acquisition is made. Section 50(2) and S. 25 lead to that inevitable conclusion. Surely what may not be done under the provisions of the Act may not be permitted to be done by invoking the jurisdiction of the High Court under Art. 226. Art. 226 is not meant to avoid or circumvent the processes of the law and the provisions of the statute. When S. 50(2) expressly bars the company or local authority at whose instance the acquisition is made from demanding a reference under S. 18 of the Act, notwithstanding that such company or local authority may be allowed to adduce evidence before the Collector, and when S. 25 expressly prohibits the court from reducing the amount of compensation while dealing with the reference under S. 18, it is clearly not permissible for the company or local authority to invoke the jurisdiction of the High Court under Art. 226 to challenge the amount of compensation awarded by the Collector and to have it reduced. 2. In this view, the writ petition against the judgment of the District Judge is not maintainable and an appeal should have been filed. 2. In this view, the writ petition against the judgment of the District Judge is not maintainable and an appeal should have been filed. The learned counsel stated that some writ petitions were entertained by this Court and that is why more writ petitions were filed. Whatever it may be, the writ petitions deserve to be dismissed. The learned counsel has stated that it is possible that even if they file an appeal the same may be dismissed on the ground of limitation. In case the petitioners file an appeal without any delay there appears to be no reason why the application for condonation of delay will not be favourably considered taking into consideration the fact that they had approached this court through writ petitions instead of filing appeal which could have been filed by them. 3. With the above observations the writ petitions are dismissed. However, there will be no order as to cost.