BINOD KUMAR ROY, S. K. JAIN, JJ. ( 1 ) THESE three writ petitions which have been filed by the petitioners who are residents of villages Sakipur and Rampur Jagir, Pargana and Tehsil Dadri, District Ghaziabad, are being disposed of by this common judgment since common questions and facts are involved. ( 2 ) THE prayers of the petitioners are to quash the order dated 9. 5. 1994 refusing to make reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act passed by the Additional District Magistrate/land acquisition Officer (Samyukta Sangathan), Ghaziabad (respondent No. 3 ). ( 3 ) EARLIER when these writ petitions were heard, it was discovered that really there was no such order dated 9. 5. 1994 passed by respondent No. 3, rather merely communications by letters made to the petitioners and in view of the stand taken in the respective pleadings of the parties, it was considered necessary in the interest of justice to command the respondents to produce the original records. ( 4 ) THE records, however, were not produced earlier, but only today. After looking into the records as produced before us. Sri Dinesh Rai, holding brief of Sri Vinod Sinha, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, contended that in fact there is no such order dated 9. 5. 1994 and an incorrect stand has been taken by the respondents. ( 5 ) SRI P. K. Bisaria, learned standing counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents, also comes up with a stand that in fact there is no such order dated 9. 5. 1994 passed by respondent No. 3 on the record. ( 6 ) ACCORDINGLY, after drawing an adverse inference against the respondents, we hold that the stand taken by them earlier in regard to existence of order dated 9. 5. 1994 having been allegedly passed by the respondent No. 3 is an incorrect stand. ( 7 ) BE that as it may, having considered the entire facts and circumstances, we hold that in the absence of any order, mere communications to the petitioners by letters as contained in annexure-2 to the writ petitions were of no consequences and nullify them. 1994 having been allegedly passed by the respondent No. 3 is an incorrect stand. ( 7 ) BE that as it may, having considered the entire facts and circumstances, we hold that in the absence of any order, mere communications to the petitioners by letters as contained in annexure-2 to the writ petitions were of no consequences and nullify them. We, thus, consider expedient in the interest of justice to command respondent No, 3 to reconsider the prayers of the petitioners for making reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act objectively and without any prejudice taking into consideration the relevant case laws interpreting the principle, nature and scope of Section 18 of the Act within three months from today by assigning reasons in accordance with law, and order accordingly. We also in the interest of Justice and in order to expedite the disposal of the issue, give liberty to the petitioners to appear before respondent No. 3 within three weeks from today who after issuing notice to the State of Uttar Pradesh will fix a date of fresh hearing of their applications. ( 8 ) WITH these observations and directions, these writ petitions are disposed of, but having regard to peculiar facts and circumstances, without making any order as to cost. ( 9 ) THE office is directed to hand over two copies of this order within one week to the learned standing counsel Sri P. K. Bisaria for communication to respondent No. 3 and follow up of the directions aforementioned. .