Judgment :- Common Judgment: D. Murugesan, J. In all these writ appeals, the Executive Engineer, Tamil Nadu Housing Board, Vellore questions the orders in the writ petitions directing the Special Tahsildar, Land Acquisition Housing, Ranipet to refer the matter under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act to Civil Court for adjudication pursuant to the Award Nos.4/1988 and 5/1988 dated 30.6.1988, 14.9.1988 and 1.8.1988. 2. The details as to the issues are as follows: 3. Mr.K.Chelladurai, learned counsel appearing for the appellant would contend that the orders in the writ petitions were made without impleading the Tamil Nadu Housing Board as one of the respondents. The Tamil Nadu Housing Board is a necessary party for the disposal of the reference under Section 18 of the Act. Secondly, he would submit that the petitioner having received the compensation under protest cannot maintain an application for reference and thirdly, in any event, the writ petitions should have been dismissed on the ground of latches. 4. Insofar as the appeals relating to the award No.4/1988, Mr.R.Margabandu, learned counsel appearing for the contesting respondents would submit that inasmuch as the claim of similarly placed persons have already been referred to the Civil Court, the appellant/Tamil Nadu Housing Board cannot object to the directions sought for. 5. Insofar as the appeals relating to the award No.5/1988, Mr.Margabandu learned counsel appearing for the contesting respondents would further submit that the land acquisition officer in the award itself has stated that he would refer the matter under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. Hence, the contesting respondents did not file such an application. 6. As far as the contention relating to the award No.4 of 1988, it must be stated that the reference in those cases were made by the Special Tahsildar on a written application made by the persons aggrieved in time and in accordance with Section 18 of the Act. The contesting respondents cannot be equated to those individuals and seek for similar direction. Hence, we are not inclined to accept the submission made by the learned counsel appearing for the contesting respondents. 7. The contesting respondents cannot be equated to those individuals and seek for similar direction. Hence, we are not inclined to accept the submission made by the learned counsel appearing for the contesting respondents. 7. A perusal of the award shows that the land acquisition officer has made a reference in the award, namely, "Reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act will be sent to the Principal Subordinate Judge, North Arcot Vellore to decide the enhanced compensation as per rules." It is true that by the above, the Special Tahsildar, Land Acquisition had indicated that a reference under Section 18 would be sent to the Civil Court for a decision as to enhancement of compensation as per rules. The said observation was made as early as on 30.6.1988,14.9.1988 and 1.8.1988. Though it is claimed by the contesting respondents that they are under the bona fide impression that the Land Acquisition Officer would come forward to refer the matter, in our opinion, such claim cannot be accepted for more than one reason that the observation was made in the year 1988 and the contesting respondents did not take any step or not even bothered to verify as to whether the reference has been made or not, till they approached this Court in the year 2002 i.e. after a period of nearly 14 years. 8. We are told that the pursuant to the award, the lands were taken possession and handed over to the Tamil Nadu Housing Board and the scheme was also implemented. The contesting respondents are not diligent in prosecuting their claims and lapses on their part have not been properly explained. Once the scheme is implemented and third parties interested have come, if the reference is ordered after a lapse of 14 years, the final cost arriving and collected by the Housing Board will be accepted and the allottees were not parties before this Court will be made to bear the difference in cost for no fault of them and in such circumstances, it would not be proper for this Court to direct the reference for the faulter, the contesting respondents, in not prosecuting their case within a reasonable period. 9. In view of the lapses on the part of the contesting respondents, we are not inclined to consider the above submissions and that the writ petitions are ought to have been rejected on the ground of latches. 9. In view of the lapses on the part of the contesting respondents, we are not inclined to consider the above submissions and that the writ petitions are ought to have been rejected on the ground of latches. Accordingly, the writ appeals are allowed and the impugned orders in the writ petitions are set aside. No costs. Consequently, connected W.A.M.P.Nos.2659 to 2661 of 2001, W.A.M.P.Nos.2125 and 2753 of 2005 and W.A.M.P.Nos.7335 to 7339 of 2004 are closed.