J. N. BHATT, J. ( 1 ) WE are shocked and surprised to have an unwarranted and unprecedented attitude and order of the respondent no. 1 in delaying the application submitted by the petitioners for reference under Section 18 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. It is, therefore, rightly said that "this world has suffered much pain and cruelty from doing what we believe it, to be right rather than from doing what we believe it to be wrong. ( 2 ) IN this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners prayer is as clear as broad daylight which ought to have been accepted by the respondent Authority when the letter was written by the petitioners. If anybody wants to look into what travesty could be caused by redtapism and misunderstanding on the part of the respondent authorities, one need not go to any other matter but has to look into this matter itself. Despite clear proposition of law under Section 18 of the Act, the subsequent clarification made by the Government of Gujarat in Revenue Department by its circular dated 17. 8. 1987 and subsequent host of judicial pronouncement and one of them which we would like to refer in Kashiram Vs. State of Maharashtra reported in 1996 LACC Page 128. The petitioners who are rustic agriculturists are unnecessarily driven to rush to the Court not only for no fault of their own, but due to total ignorance, gross laxity and full of misunderstanding on the part of the concerned authority particularly, respondent no. 1. It is really high time to atleast first consider by such authorities how to avoid redtapism if not for according redcarpet treatment to the poor people whose lands are acquired and possession is taken. ( 3 ) A horrible situation is created by the respondent authority which led the petitioners with no alternative but to knock the doors of this Court by invoking the aids of Article 226 of the Constitution of India which can be highlighted from the following undisputed facts. ( 4 ) THE petitioners applied for reference under Section 18 within time. They were directed to supply following documents without any sanction or authority of law, not only that but contrary to the provisions of Section 18, the aforesaid circular and a celebrated case law. ( 4 ) THE petitioners applied for reference under Section 18 within time. They were directed to supply following documents without any sanction or authority of law, not only that but contrary to the provisions of Section 18, the aforesaid circular and a celebrated case law. Not only that but even when the matter was called out, the Ld. AGP repeatedly and vehemently went on opposing the claim made in the petition which added to our sorrow and surprise. I. Application under Section 18 dated 21. 8. 2000 for making application 4 copiesii. Undertaking 1 copyiii. Vakalatnama of the advocate 1 copyiv. Copy of award No. 11 of 1997 1 copyabove documents were forwarded by the petitioners through their advocate Shri S. A. Sharma to the respondent no. 1. However, the respondent No. 1 has returned the whole bunch with the direction that the petitioners should supply 4 copies (typed) of award (xerox copy is not accepted), 4 copies of the undertaking, 4 copies of the application and 4 copies of the vakalatnama of the advocate. ( 5 ) IT is not understood why the Authority and Ld. AGP went insisting for supply of 4 copies of awards, 4 copies of Vakilatnama, 4 copies of undertaking as per the letter of the respondent no. 1. Not only that despite the notice dated 27. 11. 2000 sent to the respondent no. 1 through an advocate of the petitioners, the same unsupportable unacceptable stand rigidly was reiterated. In our opinion such an action on the part of the respondent authority in general and on the part of respondent authority in general and on the part of the respondent no. 1 in particular deserves serious condemnation as not only that it does not enhance avowed policy of the Government and manifested in its circular dated 17. 8. 87 but it leads to avoidable, unnecessary harassment to the poor and marginal farmers whose lands are acquired for the purposes of public cause. It is in this context, we are fully satisfied that the stand taken by the respondent authority and particularly by respondent no. 1 is, totally, unwarranted, unsustainable and contrary to the policy of the Government of Gujarat. This petition therefore deserves to be allowed. Pursuant to our order dated 2. 5. 2001, the respondent authority was directed to process and entertain the application for reference under Section 18 of the Act. 1 is, totally, unwarranted, unsustainable and contrary to the policy of the Government of Gujarat. This petition therefore deserves to be allowed. Pursuant to our order dated 2. 5. 2001, the respondent authority was directed to process and entertain the application for reference under Section 18 of the Act. It is not known to us whether it has already been entertained and processed or not. However, if it is not processed and entertained as directed by our interim order, it shall be entertained and processed within a period of 4 weeks from today. The petition is therefore allowed with costs which is quantified at Rs. 3000. 00. It is open for the respondent no. 2 to recover it from the respondent no. 1. Rule made absolute. .