JUDGMENT Hon’ble Dilip Gupta, J.—The petitioners have sought the quashing of the order dated 29th August, 2009 passed by the Additional District Judge, Court No. 8, Meerut in Land Acquisition Reference No. 649 of 1997 by which the application filed by the petitioners for deciding the Reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’) in terms of the compromise between the parties was rejected. The petitioners have also sought a direction that the Reference Court may forthwith verify the Compromise (Paper No. 57-A) between the petitioners and the Meerut Development Authority (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Development Authority’). 2. The petitioners claim to be recorded tenure holders having half share in Plot Nos. 1212, 1218, 1219, 1220, 1222, 1223, 1224, 1225 and 1234 situated in Village-Kashi, Pargana, Tehsil and District-Meerut. The said plots were acquired under the provisions of the Act for the Development Authority and an award was made under Section 11 of the Act on 22nd February, 1990. The petitioners were not satisfied with the market value offered under the said award and, therefore, submitted an application before the Special Land Acquisition Officer in respect of their half share for referring the matter to the Court under Section 18 of the Act. According to the petitioners, this application was received in the office of the Special Land Acquisition Officer on 30th March, 1990. 3. Another application dated 2nd April, 1990 was filed by petitioner No. 2-Ashutosh Jindal claiming himself to be a person “interested” on the basis of registered agreement for sale dated 8th August, 1989 before the Special Land Acquisition Officer in respect of the remaining half share belonging to their cousins Pradeep Kumar and Awadhesh Kumar for referring the matter to the Court under Section 18 of the Act. This reference application was filed on 2nd April, 1990 and was numbered as Reference Case No. 6 of 2007. However, a settlement took place between petitioner No. 2 and Pradeep Kumar and Awadhesh Kumar and petitioner No. 2-Ashutosh Jindal agreed to withdraw the said reference application. 4. This reference application was filed on 2nd April, 1990 and was numbered as Reference Case No. 6 of 2007. However, a settlement took place between petitioner No. 2 and Pradeep Kumar and Awadhesh Kumar and petitioner No. 2-Ashutosh Jindal agreed to withdraw the said reference application. 4. The Special Land Acquisition Officer by letter No. 420 dated 8th July, 1997 forwarded the reference application filed by the petitioners alongwith the report under Section 19 of the Act to the Reference Court but with the said letter the reference application dated 2nd April, 1990 filed by petitioner No. 2 in respect of the half share belonging to Pradeep Kumar and Awadhesh Kumar was enclosed instead of the reference application dated 30th March, 1990 filed by the petitioners. The application was registered as L.A.R. No. 649 of 1997. During the pendency of the reference application, the State of U.P. as well as the Development Authority entered into negotiation for the settlement of compensation outside the Court and an agreement/compromise dated 19th December, 2005 was arrived at between the parties in which the petitioners were entitled to receive compensation at the rate of Rs. 165/- per sq. yard. Similar compromises were entered into between the Development Authority and other tenure holders whose lands had been acquired. The said compromise dated 19th December, 2005 which was signed by the petitioners and the Secretary of the Development Authority as well as the Special Land Acquisition Officer was filed before the Reference Court as Paper No. 57 Kha and prayer was made to decide the reference in terms of the compromise. 5. When the reference application came up for orders before the Reference Court, the Presiding Officer noticed that the application filed by the petitioners was not before the Reference Court and infact the application filed by petitioner No. 2 in respect of the share of Pradeep Kumar and Awadhesh Kumar had been placed. The petitioners, therefore, filed an application dated 3rd January, 2006 before the Reference Court for summoning the reference application dated 30th March, 1990 filed by them from the office of the Special Land Acquisition Officer. The petitioners, therefore, filed an application dated 3rd January, 2006 before the Reference Court for summoning the reference application dated 30th March, 1990 filed by them from the office of the Special Land Acquisition Officer. An application dated 27th February, 2006 was then filed by the District Government Counsel (Civil) before the Reference Court enclosing the copy of the letter dated 12th January, 2006 sent by the Special Land Acquisition Officer which mentioned that the reference application of the petitioners had been forwarded to the Reference Court by letter No. 420 dated 8th July, 1997 but a copy of the reference application dated 30th March, 1990 filed by the petitioners was also enclosed for necessary action. 6. The Reference Court, however, by the order dated 10th March, 2006 refused to verify the compromise on the ground that the reference application of the petitioners had not been forwarded to the Court. This order was challenged by the petitioners in Writ Petition No. 27216 of 2006. The said petition was allowed by the judgment and order dated 29th January, 2007 and the order dated 10th March, 2006 was set aside. The relevant observations of the Court are as follows : “Before this Court, there are two petitioners, namely Varun Kumar and Ashutosh Jindal who had filed a reference application dated 30th March, 1990 under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. The petitioner No. 2 Ashutosh Jindal also filed another reference application dated 2nd April, 1990 under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. The Special Land Acquisition Officer while forwarding the application under Section 18 of the Act vide its letter No. 420 dated 8th July, 1997 remitted the application dated 2.4.1990 instead of forwarding the application dated 30th March, 1990. When the aforesaid defect was realized, the petitioners made an application for summoning the application dated 30.3.1990 from the office of the Special Land Acquisition Officer. The DGC appearing for the Special Land Acquisition Officer produced the original application dated 30th March, 1990 and further clarified that the letter of the Special Land Acquisition Officer No. 420 dated 8th July, 1997 should have accompanied the reference application dated 30th March, 1990 instead of the application dated 2nd April, 1990. The DGC appearing for the Special Land Acquisition Officer produced the original application dated 30th March, 1990 and further clarified that the letter of the Special Land Acquisition Officer No. 420 dated 8th July, 1997 should have accompanied the reference application dated 30th March, 1990 instead of the application dated 2nd April, 1990. It is alleged that a compromise has been arrived at between the two petitioners, the State Government and the Meerut Development Authority and on the basis of the compromise, the reference application of the petitioners dated 30th March, 1990 was required to be disposed of by the trial Court. The Court below by an order dated 10th March, 2006 refused to verify the compromise on the ground that the original reference application of the petitioners dated 30th March, 1990 was not on the record. In view of the aforesaid narration of facts, it is clear that the Special Land Acquisition Officer committed an error in transmitting the reference application of the petitioner No. 2 dated 2nd April 1990 along with his letter No. 420 dated 8th July, 1997, whereas the reference application of the petitioners dated 30th March, 1990 should have been forwarded by the SLAO. Further, in view of the fact that the District Government Counsel had also produced the original application dated 30th March 1990, which is now on the record, and there is no dispute with regard to the compromise having been arrived at, I direct the Court below to reconsider the compromise application of the petitioners and decide the same in accordance with law. In view of the aforesaid, the impugned order dated 10th March 2006 is set aside and the writ petition is allowed.” 7. After the decision of this Court, the Reference Court sent a communication dated 16th December, 2008 to the Special Land Acquisition Officer who sent a communication dated 15th January, 2009 alongwith documents in response to the said communication sent by the Reference Court. After the decision of this Court, the Reference Court sent a communication dated 16th December, 2008 to the Special Land Acquisition Officer who sent a communication dated 15th January, 2009 alongwith documents in response to the said communication sent by the Reference Court. It was pointed out by the Special Land Acquisition Officer that the original reference application had been forwarded to the Reference Court by letter No. 420 dated 8th July, 1997 and according to the records maintained in the office of the Special Land Acquisition Officer, the copy of the reference No. 649 of 1997 (Ashutosh Jindal and another v. State of U.P.) had been made available to the District Government Counsel (Civil) by letter No. 388 dated 12th January, 2006. The petitioners also filed fresh application before the Reference Court for verifying the compromise. 8. The Reference Court, however, by the order dated 29th August, 2009 has again refused to verify the compromise on the ground that the original reference application said to have been filed by the petitioners on 30th March, 1990 was not made available to the Reference Court and in the copy of the reference application, the reference number was written in different handwriting and different ink than that in the reference application filed by petitioner No. 2 for the share of Pradeep Kumar and Awadhesh Kumar. 9. Counter affidavits have been filed on behalf of the Development Authority as well as the State. 10. In its counter affidavit, the Development Authority has stated that the fact as to whether the reference application was filed by the petitioners can be verified by the Special Land Acquisition Officer. In the counter affidavit filed by the State on behalf of the Special Land Acquisition Officer, it has been stated in paragraph 7 that the petitioners had filed the reference application dated 30th March, 1990 under Section 18 of the Act. The reference application was sent by the Special Land Acquisition Officer to the Reference Court by letter No. 420 dated 8th July, 1997 and the same was registered as L.A. Reference No. 649 of 1997 (Ashutosh Jindal and another v. State of U.P.). It has also been stated that copy of the L.R. Reference No. 649 of 1997 filed by Ashutosh Jindal and Varun Kumar had been provided to the District Government Counsel (Civil) by letter No. 388 dated 12th January, 2006. 11. It has also been stated that copy of the L.R. Reference No. 649 of 1997 filed by Ashutosh Jindal and Varun Kumar had been provided to the District Government Counsel (Civil) by letter No. 388 dated 12th January, 2006. 11. Sri Manoj Gupta, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners had filed the reference application dated 30th March, 1990 under Section 18 of the Act before the Special Land Acquisition Officer but it appears that along with letter No. 420 dated 8th July, 1997, which is in connection with the reference application submitted by the petitioners, the Special Land Acquisition Officer by mistake enclosed the copy of the reference application filed by petitioner No. 2 in respect of the shares of Pradeep Kumar and Awadhesh Kumar and when this mistake was noticed by the Reference Court, the copy of the reference application submitted by the petitioners was sent by the Special Land Acquisition Officer to the Reference Court. He further submitted that in view of the judgment and order dated 29th January, 2007, the Reference Court was required to verify the compromise but instead of doing that, the Reference Court has observed that the compromise cannot be verified as the original reference application was not placed before the Reference Court and in the copy of the reference application before the Court, the reference number was written in different handwriting and different ink than in the reference application filed by petitioner No. 2 on behalf of Pradeep Kumar and Awadhesh Kumar. He further submitted that once the State admitted that the petitioners had filed a reference application dated 30th March, 1990 which had been sent to the Reference Court on 8th July, 1997 and a copy of the reference application had also been sent by the Special Land Acquisition Officer to the Reference Court, there was no occasion for the Reference Court to express any doubts about the filing of the reference application and the compromise should have been verified. 12. Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Special Land Acquisition Officer has only referred the paragraphs of the counter affidavit in which it has been stated that the reference application was filed by the petitioners and had been sent to the Reference Court. 13. I have carefully considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties. 14. 12. Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Special Land Acquisition Officer has only referred the paragraphs of the counter affidavit in which it has been stated that the reference application was filed by the petitioners and had been sent to the Reference Court. 13. I have carefully considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties. 14. The Court in its judgment and order dated 20th January, 2007 clearly observed that the Special Land Acquisition Officer had committed an error in transmitting the reference application dated 2nd April, 1990 filed by petitioner No. 2 along with letter No. 420 dated 8th July, 1997, whereas the reference application dated 30th March, 1990 should have been forwarded by the Special Land Acquisition Officer. The Court also noticed that the District Government Counsel (Civil) had also produced the copy of the reference application dated 30th March, 1990 which was on record. It is, in such circumstances, that this Court directed the Reference Court to decide the compromise application in accordance with law. In view of the aforesaid decision of the Court and in view of the fact that the State did not dispute that the petitioners had filed the reference application dated 30th March, 1990, the Reference Court should not have rejected the compromise application on the ground that the original reference application was not on the record or that reference number in the copy of the application before the Reference Court was written in different handwriting and with different ink. In the letter dated 12th January, 2006 sent by the Special Land Acquisition Officer to the District Government Counsel (Civil), it was clearly mentioned that the petitioners had submitted the reference application under Section 18 of the Act which had been forwarded to the Reference Court by letter No. 420 dated 8th July, 1997. The petitioners cannot be blamed if their original reference application was not on the record. The copy of the reference application will obviously contain the reference number in different handwriting and different ink and this, therefore, could not have been made a ground for rejecting compromise application. 15. It is, therefore, difficult to sustain the order dated 29th August, 2009 passed by the Reference Court. It is, accordingly, set aside. The Reference Court shall now pass an appropriate order on the compromise application expeditiously. 16. The writ petition is allowed to extent indicated above. ————