Judgement In this writ application under Art. 226 of the Constitution the petitioners have prayed for issuance of appropriate writ or direction to refer the question of fair valuation and quantum of compensation or damages to the Civil Court for determination under the law and also for payment of compensation. 2. The case of the petitioners is that the Government took over about 5803 Bighas of Akhing land. In the year 1972-73 Williamnagar Township was established as Sub-Divisional H.Q. and the Deputy Commissioner on 12-3-77 decided to acquire the land. A notification under S. 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was issued by the Collector to this effect on 18-10-83. Thereafter on 19-1-1984 declaration under S. 6 of the Act was published and claims were invited u/S. 9 of the Act. Thereafter the Deputy Commissioner on 21-3-84 made an award fixing Rs. 100/- per bigha for Akhing land and Rs. 200/- for homestead land. After the award some of the villagers submitted an application to the Chief Minister, Government of Meghalaya, Shillong praying for enhancement of the amount of compensation awarded by the Collector (Deputy Commissioner). A copy of this application was forwarded amongst others, to the Revenue Minister and the Deputy Commissioner, East Garo Hills District, Williamnagar for favour of information and necessary action. As no action was taken, by Annexure-C representation dated l-5-84 some of the petitioners and others filed application requesting the Deputy Commissioner for enhancement of the compensation awarded by him or to refer the matter to the concerned authorities for proper valuation. Thereafter several representations were filed before various authorities including the Chief Minister, but nothing was done. Hence the petitioners have filed this petition praying for issuance of a direction for referring the matter to the Court for proper adjudication. Respondent, namely, the State of Meghalaya and the Deputy Commissioner, East Garo Hills filed affidavit denying receipt of any application as contemplated under S. 18 of the Land Acquisition Act and, therefore, according to them this petition deserves rejection. Respondents 1 and 2 further stated that Annexures-B, C and other representations were not received by the Government. At least those are not on Government record. 3. I have heard Mr. P. K. Goswami, learned counsel for the petitioners and also Mr. A. Sarma, learned Government Advocate, Meghalaya. 4-5. Mr. Respondents 1 and 2 further stated that Annexures-B, C and other representations were not received by the Government. At least those are not on Government record. 3. I have heard Mr. P. K. Goswami, learned counsel for the petitioners and also Mr. A. Sarma, learned Government Advocate, Meghalaya. 4-5. Mr. Goswami submits that it is an admitted fact that the land was acquired under the Land Acquisition Act and the persons aggrieved with the compensation awarded by the Collector have right to claim the matter to be referred to the Court and in this case Annexure-B petition was filed to the Chief Minister and thereafter filed Annexure-C representation to the Deputy Commissioner, Respondent No. 2. Annexure-B petition was also forwarded to the Respondent No. 2. Mr. Goswami further submits that all these ought to have been treated as a petition u/S. 18 for the ends of justice because the villagers are illiterate and the technicalities of the procedure are not well known to them. In this connection Mr. Goswami has drawn my attention to a decision of the Apex Court in Gurumayum Sakhigopal Sarma v. K. Ongbi Anisija Devi (Civil Appeal No. 659 of 1957). This was a case in connection with application of the Civil Procedure Code in Manipur. At that time the Civil Procedure Code was not applicable in the said State. The Apex Court observed thus - "This is a piece of legislation which is somewhat strange, but the reason appears to be that the technicalities of the Code, as we know, should not trammel litigation embarked upon by a people unused to them. We have, therefore, to apply the spirit of the Code of Civil Procedure to the present case." The provisions of the L.A. Act provide various procedures for filing objection against acquisition of land, putting up claims for compensation, making award by the Collector and thereafter for filing petition to refer the matter to a Court for proper adjudication of compensation within a prescribed time. The people living in the State of Meghalaya are yet to be familiar to all these procedures, more so, in case of the villagers residing in the acquired land. They are illiterate villagers and it cannot be expected that these villagers should act in the manner the Act provides. It will be too much to expect that. 6. The people living in the State of Meghalaya are yet to be familiar to all these procedures, more so, in case of the villagers residing in the acquired land. They are illiterate villagers and it cannot be expected that these villagers should act in the manner the Act provides. It will be too much to expect that. 6. Considering the submissions of the learned counsel of the parties I dispose of this application with a direction to the respondents to treat Annexures-B and C as petitions for referring the matter to the Court within the meaning of S. 3(d) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. It is submitted by Mr. Sarma that Annexures-B and C representations are not available in the office record. Therefore, the petitioners are directed to furnish a copy each of Annexures-B and C along with their claims giving full particulars to the 2nd respondent within a period of one month. Thereafter the 2nd respondent shall refer the matter u/S. 18 of the Act to the Court as defined u/S. 3(d) of the Act. This must be done within one month after receipt of the representations. 7. As the land was taken over as far back in 1972 and the matter is still pending, the Court shall make all endeavour to dispose of the matter as expeditiously as possible. Order accordingly.