J. M. PANCHAL, J. ( 1 ) MR. B. S. Patel, learned Counsel, who appears on behalf of the petitioner in all these petitions, seeks permission of the Court to delete respondents no. 3 and 4 from the above-numbered petitions. In view of the averments made in the petitions and the reliefs claimed, permission as prayed for is granted. Names of respondents no. 3 and 4 stand deleted from the above-numbered petitions. ( 2 ) RULE. Mr. P. G. Desai, learned Government Pleader waives service of notice of rule on behalf of respondents no. 1 and 2. At the joint request of learned advocates appearing for the parties, the petitions are take-up for final hearing today. ( 3 ) AS the petitions involve common question of fact and law, we propose to dispose of them by this common judgment. ( 4 ) THE lands belonging to the petitioners were acquired for the purpose of rehabilitation of oustees of Narmada Yojna. The learned Government Pleader on instructions has given particulars regarding lands which were owned by the petitioners as well as the villages in which they were situated. The learned Government Pleader has also given particulars regarding different awards made on different dates in respect of the lands of the petitioners. Those particulars are as under:-@@@ No. of Spl. Civil/name of Name of /name of /block No. Date Application. petitioner village of land. of award 1 2 3 4 5 4112/98 -Karsanbhai Gordhanbhai Fata 18 6. 1. 97 Patel 4113/98 -Ramanbhai Ranchhodbhai Malu 166 5. 8. 97 4115/98 -Mathurbhai Gokalbhai Malu 181 12. 6. 97 4116/98 -Shivabhai Madhabhai Malu 167 5. 8. 97 4117/98 -Bhailal Manilal Malu 108 Paiki 5. 8. 97 4119/98 -Indravadan Gokalbhai Sanoli 96 9. 6. 97 4120/98 -Vinodkumar Nagjibhai Sanoli 90 9. 6. 97 4121/98 -Jagabhai Vigabhai Baria Kudi 95 paiki 12. 2. 96 Unchakalam 4123/98 -Dahyabhai Maganbhai Malu 165 5. 8. 97 4125/98 -Tulsidas Ramjibhai Laved 115 12. 2. 96 Patel (Patara) -- ( 5 ) IN all these petitions, the respective petitioner through learned advocate, made application to respondent no. 2 requiring him to refer the matter to District Court, Vadodara for determination of compensation. The respondent no. 2 by an order dated D 1/12/1995 has rejected the prayer made by respective petitioner to refer the matter tothe Court on the ground that the petitioners did not furnish better particulars of the lands acquired. 2 requiring him to refer the matter to District Court, Vadodara for determination of compensation. The respondent no. 2 by an order dated D 1/12/1995 has rejected the prayer made by respective petitioner to refer the matter tothe Court on the ground that the petitioners did not furnish better particulars of the lands acquired. The said order is produuced by the respective petitioner at Annexure-A to each petition. Mr. P. G. Desai, learned Government Pleader on instructions states at the bar that the reference applications are rejected because consent award was made by respondent no. 2 under the provisions of Section 11 (2) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The order at Annexure-A does not indicate that the prayer made by the petitioner in each petition to refer the matter to District Court, Vadodara for the purpose of determination of compensation is rejected on the ground that consent award was made by respondent no. 2 under section 11 (2) of the Act. On the contrary, the impugned order shows that the prayer made by the petitioners to refer the matter to Court for determination of compensation, is rejected on the ground that each petitioner failed to furnish better particulars of his land which was acquired. Therefore, the order produced at Annexure-A in each petition deserves to be set aside with appropriate direction to respondent no. 2 to consider the application submitted by each petitioner for making reference to the Court in accordance with law. ( 6 ) FOR the foregoing reasons, all the petitions are partly allowed. Order at Annexure-A which is produced in each petition,is hereby set aside and quashed. The respondent no. 2 is directed to reconsider the application submitted by each petitioner seeking reference to the Court for the purpose of determination of compensation on merits and in accordance with law. The respondent no. 2 shall reconsider the applications as early as possible and preferably within three months from today. Rule is made absolute in each petition accordingly, with no order as to costs. .