Judgment Jasbir Singh, J. 1. Petitioners have filed this writ petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ of mandamus, directing the respondents to release compensation of the land, in dispute, @ Rs. 6.50 per square yard, as enhanced by the Tribunal, in addition to compensation already granted by respondent No. 1, vide Award dated 8.5.1987 (Annexure P/3) as the enhanced compensation had already been paid to the similarly situated right holders, whose land was acquired alongwith the land, in dispute, which was in the ownership of the petitioners. Petitioners have further claimed interest @ 18% per annum on the amount due from the date when Award (Annexure P/2) was passed till realisation of the amount. It was further prayed that appropriate order, directing the respondents to pay reasonable compensation to the petitioners at the market rate, be passed regarding the land, which was acquired vide notification issued under Section 36 of the Town Improvement Act on 20.6.1973. It was further prayed that any appropriate writ, order or direction be issued by this Court as the facts of this case may necessitate. 2. It is apparent from the records that Dewan Badri Dass, predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners, who was a displaced person, purchased land, in dispute, in an open auction in the year 1962, at a price of Rs. 70,000/- being highest bidder. Out of the land so purchased, 1 Bighas 19 Biswas was transferred in the name of one Ghanshyam Dass, being sub-lessee. When asked by the department as to whether he would accept remaining land measuring 13 Biswas, at prorata price of Rs. 59,963/-, offer was accepted by predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners. As per evidence on record, an amount of Rs. 5,100.57 was due to said Dewan Badri Dass, as a compensation, being displaced person. For payment of remaining sale consideration, Dewan Badri Dass sought permission from Regional Settlement Commissioner, to associate one Rai Sahib Chaudhary Pratap Singh, for the purpose of making said payment. It is further averred by the petitioners that Dewan Badri Dass had left land in Pakistan which was in his individual name and he had also inherited land being legal heir of his brother Col. D.H. Rai. It is further averred by the petitioners that Dewan Badri Dass had left land in Pakistan which was in his individual name and he had also inherited land being legal heir of his brother Col. D.H. Rai. His claim for adjustment of price out of compensation was clubbed by the rehabilitation department, which was challenged by filing C.W.P. No. 290 of 1962 in this Court and the same was allowed on 9.1.1964. Department of Rehabilitation went in appeal before Hon ble Supreme Court and failed. Despite that sale certificate was not issued by the department in favour of Dewan Badri Dass. Application was moved under Section 24 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954 (in short the Act), which was allowed on 22.10.1974 and the Tehsildar Sales-cum-Managing Officer, Karnal was directed to issue sale certificate. Order, referred to above,was not implemented. Despite many representations made by said Dewan Badri Dass, departmental authorities failed to issue necessary sale certificate, as directed vide order, referred to above. Rather a petition under Section 33 of the Act was filed, which was disposed of by the Financial Commissioner, Haryana on 7.7.1980.Petitioners challenged the said order by filing C.W.P. No. 4393 of 1980 and the same was allowed by this Court vide order dated 2.12.1992. It was observed by this Court that the property, in dispute, did not form part of the package deal and the state Government has no right to deal with the same. It was further held that the predecesor-in-interest of the petitioners were eligible to purchase the property, in dispute. Order passed by the Financial Commissioner was set aside. During pendency of this litigation, original owner Dewan Badri Dass had died and the petitioners had succeeded him as his legal heirs. In the meantime, respondent No. 2 is sued a notification under Section 36 on 20.6.1973 of the Town Improvement Act and acquired land in dispute alongwith other land for development scheme No. 26. Predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners and petitioner No. l filed a claim petition before the Collector, claiming compensation @ Rs. 3,000/- per marla and vide Award Annexure P/3, an amount of Rs. 4,18,459.90 was awarded to the petitioners. as compensation. Record shows that grant of compensation was discriminatory, as the adjoining land was assessed at the higher rate. Predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners and petitioner No. l filed a claim petition before the Collector, claiming compensation @ Rs. 3,000/- per marla and vide Award Annexure P/3, an amount of Rs. 4,18,459.90 was awarded to the petitioners. as compensation. Record shows that grant of compensation was discriminatory, as the adjoining land was assessed at the higher rate. Since ownership of the petitioner was in litigation, they could not move a reference, whereas Ghanshyam Dass, to whom adjoining land was allotted, alongwith Dewan Dadri Dass, made a reference and compensation was increased @ Rs. 6.50 per square yard vide Award passed by the Tribunal on 8.5.1987. 3. By stating all these facts, present writ petition was filed in the year 1995, claiming higher compensation as was awarded to the adjoining right holders, who were similarly situated. This writ petition was admitted for hearing on 21.11.1996. Thereafter, it was put up before Permanent Lok Adalat and on 27.4.2001, following order was passed:- "Naveen Chander Duggal and others are the petitioners. Their predecessor-in-interest Dewan Dabri Dass had given auction for purchasing evacuee land. Since sale certificate was not issued, the petitioners could not get compensation for the land acquired. The Land Acquisition Collector in his award Annexure P-2 dated January 28, 1976, at internal page 7, dealt with the case of Diwan Keshab Chander, Advocate, Karnal, predecessor-in-interest of the present petitioners and specifically observed "They have not so far been issued sale certificate by the Rehabilitation Department, hence the compensation be withheld till the ownership is proved." It was on June 27, 1994, that the Rehabilitation Department issued sale certificate and the present writ petition was filed in September 1995 seeking compensation. It will not be out of place to mention at this stage that vide Annexure P-3, judgment of the Tribunal, compensation was paid at a higher rate to other landowner, namely, Ghanshyam Dass. Ghansjhyam Dass was not satisfied and had filed C.W.P. No. 3593 of 1988 in which proposal has been made today by this Lok Adalat granting him compensation at Rs. 42.50 per square yard of land which was low lying. It may further be observed that during the pendency of the writ petition a contempt petition was filed and the Collector then made payment of compensation as determined by him. Such compensation was paid on November 10, 1995, vide order Annexure P-2, to the present petitioners. 42.50 per square yard of land which was low lying. It may further be observed that during the pendency of the writ petition a contempt petition was filed and the Collector then made payment of compensation as determined by him. Such compensation was paid on November 10, 1995, vide order Annexure P-2, to the present petitioners. In short, the petitioners claim compensation at the same rate that has been allowed to Ghanshyam Dass. To this there is a serious objection raised on behalf of the Improvement Trust. Counsel for the Improvement Trust also objects for referring the matter to the District Judge/Tribunal under the Town Improvement Act, 1922, to determine the case of the petitioners on the pleas of limitation and non-initiation of the proceedings in that context by the petitioners and further that much delay has been caused in taking such steps. It is in the facts as above that we consider a reasonable and fair order to be passed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India that equity deserves. Owners of the land should not be debarred from their right simply because they were prosecuting legitimate litigation before the appropriate authorities for clearance of their title. As observed the order of the Collector itself Annexure P-2, payment of compensation to the petitioners was withheld since sale certificate had not been issued to them by the Rehabilitation Department. Thus, their right to claim compensation accrue when such a certificate was issued in 1994. They were not made the payment. They had approached this Court and this writ petition was pending when the Collector was obliged to make the payment. The petitioners, when already had approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution, may be as advised, did not separately move under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act approaching the District Judge/Tribunal for claiming enhanced compensation and we are of the view that they should not be denied their legitimate compensation for their land which has been acquired. As to how much land of the petitioners is low lying and how much amount is to be deducted from the uniform rate paid to other owners are questions which are to be decided by the Tribunal/District Judge where the case deserves to be sent. We propose accordingly. As to how much land of the petitioners is low lying and how much amount is to be deducted from the uniform rate paid to other owners are questions which are to be decided by the Tribunal/District Judge where the case deserves to be sent. We propose accordingly. We dispose of the writ petition with the directions to the petitioners to make a regular reference to the District Judge/Tribunal under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, claiming higher compensation within one month. If the parties object to the order as proposed above, they may move the High Court within one month for disposal of the writ petition on merits according to law. Copies of the order be supplied to the counsel for the parties." Order passed was not acceptable to respondent No. 2. It filed objections against the same and accordingly, this matter was put up for hearing before this Court. 4 Counsel for the petitioners has vehemently contended that facts of this case are such that the petitioners deserve grant of compensation at the rate at which it was granted to the similarly situated right holders. He further stated that the allowing the petitioners to file reference before the Tribunal under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (in short the 1894 Act), Permanent Lok Adalat had imparted substantial justice between the parties. At the time when award was pronounced by the Collector, the petitioners could not file a reference, as their title to the land has yet not become final and was pending in litigation. Other right holders whose land was similarly situated filed reference and compensation in their cases was increased @ Rs. 6.50 per square yard. Counsel contended that the petitioners are also entitled to get same amount of compensation regarding their land. He further stated that objection of limitation, as has been raised by the opposite party, be not taken against the petitioner, in view of peculiar facts and circumstances of this case. To support his contention, he has placed reliance upon judgment of this Court in Union of India V/s. Special Land Acquisition Collector, Jalandhar and Ors., (1992-2)102 P.L.R. (P&H) 412. He further stated that objection of limitation, as has been raised by the opposite party, be not taken against the petitioner, in view of peculiar facts and circumstances of this case. To support his contention, he has placed reliance upon judgment of this Court in Union of India V/s. Special Land Acquisition Collector, Jalandhar and Ors., (1992-2)102 P.L.R. (P&H) 412. He further contended that the State Government and its agencies cannot be permitted to take benefit of legal technicalities of law with a view to deprive a right holder to compensation to which he is entitled on account of acquisition of their land. He prayed that objections having been filed with ulterior motive, be dismissed and order of Lok Adalat be upheld. 5. Shri Goel, appearing for the respondents has vehemently opposed claim made by counsel for the petitioners. He had argued that since petitioners have failed to file reference under Section 18 of 1894 Act, at the relevant time, limitation, will stand in their way and under no circumstances the same can be extended. He further prayed that the orders passed by the Lok Adalat being contrary to the provisions of Section 18 of 1894 Act, cannot sustained. He prayed that otherwise also, claim raised being barred by limitation, no relief can be granted to the petitioners after such a long delay. He prayed that objections be allowed and order passed by the Lok Adalat be set aside and consequently, writ petition be also dismissed. 6. After hearing counsel for the parties, this Court feels that it is a peculiar case where the State agencies are trying to take undue benefit of the situation, in which petitioners were placed by the State itself. It is apparent from the records that Award Annexure P/2 granting compensation was pronounced by the Collector on 28.1.1976. It was specifically stated therein that payment of compensation to the petitioners be with-held, till their ownership is proved. Record reveals that the land, in dispute was auctioned in favour of Dewan Babri Dass, predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners, in the year 1962. Despite no default on his part, sale certificate was not issued. Matter even went upto the Hon ble Supreme Court and was decided in his.favour. Petitioners, therefore moved one application under Section 24 of the Act and competent authority was directed to issue a sale certificate vide order dated 22.10.1974. Despite no default on his part, sale certificate was not issued. Matter even went upto the Hon ble Supreme Court and was decided in his.favour. Petitioners, therefore moved one application under Section 24 of the Act and competent authority was directed to issue a sale certificate vide order dated 22.10.1974. Order passed was not implemented, rather in the year 1980 one application was moved under Section 33 of the Act by the respondents and the same was disposed of on 17.7.1980. Petitioners filed C.W.P. No. 4393 of 1980 in this Court, which ultimately, was allowed on 2.12.1992. Sale in favour of Dewan Badri Dass was held to be valid and order passed by the Financial Commissioner on 17.7.1980 was set aside. It is further apparent from the records that even thereafter, sale certificate was issued, with the intervention of the Court, only in the year 1994, as such, thereafter, they had become entitled to claim compensation regarding land, in dispute. Immediately, thereafter, present writ petition was filed by the petitioners and the same was admitted by this Court on 21.11.1996. 7. This Court is of the opinion that by allowing the petitioners to move a reference under Section 18 of the Act, before the Tribunal, a substantial justice has been done to them by the Lok Adalat. State Government was determined in not allowing the petitioners. to become owners of the property, in dispute. Matter continued in various Courts from 1962 till 1994 when finally, sale certificate was issued in favour of the petitioners. Under these circumstances, this Court is of the view that there was no occasion with the petitioners to file a reference against the Award passed by the Collector on 28.1.1978. No doubt, there is some delay in filing the present writ petition after grant of sale certificate but in view of facts and circumstances of this case, delay deserves to be condoned,as has been held by this Court in Union of Indias case (supra). Land was acquired by the State Government for respondent No. 2 for setting up a developed colony. Land had already been consumed for the said purpose.Adjoining right holders were granted compensation at a higher rate. Now due to sheer technicalities, it does not lie in the mouth of the respondents to say that the petitioners are not entitled to the same amount of compensation. 8. Land had already been consumed for the said purpose.Adjoining right holders were granted compensation at a higher rate. Now due to sheer technicalities, it does not lie in the mouth of the respondents to say that the petitioners are not entitled to the same amount of compensation. 8. Counsel for the respondents, has relied upon Babua Ram and Ors. V/s. State of U.P. and Anr., 1995 L.A.C.C. 214, to contend that the petitioners at this stage, can not be permitted to file reference, as has been allowed by the Lok Adalat. With respect this Court is of the view that the ratio of judgment, referred to above, is not applicable to the facts of this case, which are peculiar in nature and are confined to the dispute in the present case only. 9. Their Lordships of Supreme court in Sardar Amarjit Singh Kalra (dead) by L.Rs. and Ors. V/s. Parmod Gupta (Smt.) (dead) by L.Rs. and Ors., , in para 26 of the judgment had opined as under:- "Laws of procedure are meant to regulate effectively, assist and aid the object of doing substantial and real justice and not to foreclose even an adjudication merits of substantial rights of citizen under proposal, property and other laws. Procedure has always been viewed as the handmaid of justice and not meant to hamper the cause of justice or sanctify miscarriage of justice." View extracted above, was reiterated by their Lordships of Supreme Court in N. Balajit V/s. Virendra Singh and Ors., , wherein after noting ratio of the judgment, referred to above, in para 10 of the judgment, it was observed that the procedure would not be used to discourage the substantial and effective justice but would be so construed as to advance the cause of justice. Present is a case where, in view of peculiar facts, the petitioners deserve benefit of concession as granted to them by Lok Adalat. They are litigating for their rights since 1962. Even after the decision of this writ petition, they may remain in litigation, expectedly for many years more. In view of above mentioned facts, this Court is of the considered view that the objections filed by respondent No. 2 have no substance and deserve dismissal. So ordered. Order passed by the Lok Adalat stands confirmed and consequently, writ petition stands allowed in terms of the order passed by the Lok Adalat. In view of above mentioned facts, this Court is of the considered view that the objections filed by respondent No. 2 have no substance and deserve dismissal. So ordered. Order passed by the Lok Adalat stands confirmed and consequently, writ petition stands allowed in terms of the order passed by the Lok Adalat. No order as to costs.