Judgment (A.P. Lavande, J.) 1. Heard Mrs. Agni, learned Advocate for the petitioners, Mr. Nadkarni, learned Advocate General for respondents. 2. By this petition, the petitioners challenge the decision of respondent no.2 refusing to make reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act ('the Act' for short) & further seek direction to respondent no.2 to refer the petitioners' application dated 06/09/2004 made under Section 18 of the Act to the Reference Court. 3. Briefly, the facts leading to filing of the present petition are as under : 4. Respondent no.1 acquired lands of several persons for setting up of industrial estate/ project at Navelim in Bicholim Taluka by Goa Industrial Development Corporation by issuing notification under Section 4 of the Act dated 13/09/2001. The said notification was published in official gazette on 19/09/2001 and award was passed on 31/03/2004. The area admeasuring 74125 square metres of survey no.119/0 was part of the acquired land. In respect of Survey No.119/0, the Communidade of Navelim is listed as occupant under Form No.I and XIV and Shri Sadu Balgo Gawas was shown as a tenant. 5. According to Mrs. Agni, Sadu Gawas, the father of the petitioner had expired in October, 1986. Smt. Muktabai Gawas, the mother of the petitioner appeared before the Land Acquisition Officer. Since there was no declaration of tenancy, respondent no.2 referred the matter to the District Court for apportionment under Section 30 of the Act. 6. The petitioners filed an application dated 06/09/2004 before respondent no.2 seeking reference in respect of the said land. However, in the application, instead of Survey No.119/0, Survey No.190/0 was mentioned although the area and other details were correctly mentioned. The petitioners claimed compensation at the rate of Rs.75/-per square metre. Respondent no.2 by communication dated 10/09/2004 rejected the reference on the ground that the application was made beyond the period of 42 days as contemplated under Section 18(2)(b) of the Act. Respondent no.2 also held that the petitioners had not appeared before him to claim compensation in respect of the acquired land. Thirdly, respondent no.2 held that the reference was sought in respect of Survey No.190/0 which did not form the part of the acquired land. 7. The petitioners have filed the present petition seeking reference under Section 18 of the Act in respect of Survey No.119/0. 8. Mr. Thirdly, respondent no.2 held that the reference was sought in respect of Survey No.190/0 which did not form the part of the acquired land. 7. The petitioners have filed the present petition seeking reference under Section 18 of the Act in respect of Survey No.119/0. 8. Mr. Nadkarni, learned Advocate General appearing on behalf of the respondents submitted that the respondents would have no objection if reference is made to the District Court by keeping all the contentions of the parties open. According to Mr. Nadkarni, all the contentions including the contentions that (i) the petitioners are not persons interested and that (ii) the application for reference is barred by limitation, be kept open for decision of the Reference Court. 9. Mrs. Agni, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that she has no objection if reference is made by keeping the above referred contentions open before the Reference Court. Mrs. Agni further submits that since there was typographical mistake in the application for reference and the petitioners had inadvertently mentioned Survey No.190/0 instead of Survey No.119/0, respondent no.2 be directed to make reference in respect of Survey No.119/0. 10. Mr. Nadkarni, learned Advocate General has no objection for the same. 11. In view of the above, the order dated 10/09/2004 passed by respondent no.2 is quashed and respondent no.2 is directed to make reference to the District Court, North Goa at Panaji expeditiously. It is made clear that the issues as to whether the petitioners are persons interested and whether the application for reference under Section 18 of the Act is filed within a period of limitation prescribed under Section 18 of the Act, are kept open for decision of the Reference Court. Respondent no.2 shall make reference to the Reference Court in terms of application dated 06/09/2004 in respect of Survey No.119/0 and not Survey No.190/0 as inadvertently mentioned in the application dated 06/09/2004. 12. Since admittedly, the acquisition is for Goa Industrial Development Corporation, in view of the settled law, the Goa Industrial Development Corporation shall be a necessary party before the Reference Court and as such, the Reference Court shall give notice of the reference to Goa Industrial Development Corporation before proceeding with reference after reference is made by respondent no.2 to the Reference Court. 13. 13. Since the reference to be made by respondent no.2 pertains to an award passed in the year 2004, the Reference Court shall dispose of the reference expeditiously. 14. Writ Petition stands disposed of in aforesaid terms with no order as to costs.