JUDGMENT 1. - The matter appears to have a checkered history. In pursuance to a notification issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act on 13.05.1960 after completion of proceedings an award was passed by the Land Acquisition Officer on 24.09.1974. After passing of the award many reference applications were submitted by respective parties under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. The reference application submitted by contesting respondents was rejected on merits by the competent court with the observations that the party claimants have not been able to submit any material for enhancement of compensation. There is nothing on record to show that the order dated 24.07.1981 passed by the trial court in reference No. 12/75 preferred by the contesting respondents was further challenged before the higher courts. 2. It appears that the application submitted by the then Urban Improvement Trust, Jaipur was rejected by the trial court on the ground of maintainability against which a civil revision was preferred by the Urban Improvement Trust, Jaipur before this Court. While allowing the revision this Court in S.B. Civil Revision Petition No. 14/1980 vide order dated 11/02/1980 remanded the matter back to the trial court to decide the reference on merits. In pursuance of order dated 11/02/1980 in reference preferred by the Urban Improvement Trust, Jaipur, the trial court for the reasons not known clubbed all the reference matters together including the reference preferred by the contesting respondents which had already been dismissed by the trial court on 24/07/1981 on merits. After consolidating all the references the trial court passed the impugned order dated 30/03/1994 enhancing the compensation to all the claimants. 3. It has been submitted that neither any application for setting aside the order dated 24.07.1981 had been filed by the contesting respondents before the trial court nor the reference preferred by the contesting respondents and dismissed vide order dated 24/07/1981 was ever restored. Even the contesting respondents have not been able to controvert the above statement made on behalf of the petitioner. The reply filed on behalf of the contesting respondents is absolutely vague and evasive. The contesting respondents also have not been able to submit the date of such application, what to say copy of application and even the date of order by which the earlier order dated 24/07/1981 had ever been recalled. The reply filed on behalf of the contesting respondents is absolutely vague and evasive. The contesting respondents also have not been able to submit the date of such application, what to say copy of application and even the date of order by which the earlier order dated 24/07/1981 had ever been recalled. A bare reading of the order dated 24/07/1981 would show that the contesting respondents have not been able to prove their claim for enhancement of compensation. The order dated 24/07/1981 in no case could have been treated as an order dismissing the claim in default. Be that as it may, in absence of any proof whatsoever in regard to recalling the order dated 24/07/1981, the impugned order dated 30/03/1994 so far as contesting respondents are concerned, was wholly without jurisdiction, arbitrary and malafide and further nothing but sheer misuse of due process of law. It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that it was only with connivance of the then counsel appearing on behalf of the Urban Improvement Trust that the entire mischief was played for which necessary complaint had also been made against the Advocate concerned before the Bar council of Rajasthan. 4. The objection in regard to the order passed by the trial court been appealable under ordinary civil law raised on behalf 'of contesting respondents cannot be accepted since the reference itself had been preferred under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act and the trial court was exercising jurisdiction only under the powers given under Land Acquisition Act. Moreover, in view of gross illegality and irregularity committed by the court below, this Court has the jurisdiction under Article 226 and 227 to interfere in such matters. 5. Having considered entire facts and circumstances, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 30/03/1994 is quashed and set aside and the contesting respondents are held not entitled to any relief. A copy of this order may be sent to Registrar General (Vigilance) to take necessary action against the Judicial Officer who had passed the impugned order if the officer is still in service.Writ Petition Allowed. *******