Judgment: (A.S. Oka, J.) Rule. Learned AGP appearing for the respondent Nos.2 to 5 waives service. Respondent No.1 is the Taluka Legal Services Authority. The Respondent No.6 is the learned Judge before whom the Reference Applications were pending. The Respondent No.1 and 6 are formal parties and notice to them is not necessary. Considering the controversy involved, the petitions are forthwith taken up for final disposal. 2. The petitioners are the claimants in the Reference Applications under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as "the said Act"). Notification under Section 4(1) of the said Act was published on 7th October, 1999. The acquisition was for construction of Ujani Canal. Awards under Section 11 of the said Act were made on 28th February, 2003. Market value offered by the said awards was at the rate of Rs.50,000/- per Hectare. As the petitioners did not accept the awards, at their instance, References under Section 18 of the said Act were made. The references were pending in the District Court. By consent of the parties, the References were placed before the Maha Lok Adalat held on 20th September, 2011. Settlement was arrived at before the Lok Adalat. The undisputed terms of the settlement arrived at were recorded in the consent awards. On page 22 of the Writ Petition No.8891 of 2012, the terms of the settlement which are common in all the References have been incorporated. In our order dated 9th January, 2013 we have recorded that prima facie there does not appear any dispute regarding the terms compromise such as the market value fixed, the quantum of interest payable and the payment of other statutory benefits. We have also recorded that the only dispute is regarding the quantum of amount payable as per the compromise arrived at between the parties. In our order dated 9th January, 2013, we noted that either the Special Land Acquisition Officer will have to be directed to make correct calculation or the Reference Court will have directed to calculate the amount of compensation payable in terms of the compromise. Today, learned AGP states that she has not received any instructions. 3. As we have noted earlier, the compromise was made on 20th September, 2011. The terms of the compromise recorded in writing have not been disputed by the State Government till today. Today, learned AGP states that she has not received any instructions. 3. As we have noted earlier, the compromise was made on 20th September, 2011. The terms of the compromise recorded in writing have not been disputed by the State Government till today. Therefore, this Court can safely proceed on the footing that there is no dispute about the terms of the settlement which was arrived at before the Lok Adalat and which have been incorporated in the consent award. 4. The allegation in the petitions is that after the terms and conditions of the settlement were agreed upon, the signatures of the petitioners were obtained on blank forms after incorporating therein the terms of settlement and a sheet for incorporating the calculations in terms of the settlement was kept blank. It is alleged that on that day, before the Lok Adalat, calculation of the amount payable in terms of compromise was made only in one reference. It is alleged that in case of other references, the calculations were incorporated subsequently which are completely erroneous. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner states that the only anxiety of the petitioners is that they must get the compensation as per the agreement arrived at before the Lok Adalat. There are very serious allegations made in the petitions regarding the manner in which compromise was recorded in the Lok Adalat. The learned counsel for the petitioners has taken a very fair stand, and therefore, we are not going into the said allegations. 5. We have alreadyreferred to the agreement arrived at between the parties which is reproduced in Marathi on page 22 of Writ Petition No.8891 of 2012. Now the only question is of computation of the compensation amount payable to the petitioners in terms of the agreed terms. It will be in the interests of both the parties if the Reference Court is directed to hear the parties and to determine the amount of compensation payable in accordance with the agreed terms of compromise. It will be always open for the Special Land Acquisition Officer to submit correct calculation of the amounts payable to the petitioners in terms of the settlement. After hearing the parties, the determination of the exact amount payable to the petitioners will have to be made by the Reference Court. It will be always open for the Special Land Acquisition Officer to submit correct calculation of the amounts payable to the petitioners in terms of the settlement. After hearing the parties, the determination of the exact amount payable to the petitioners will have to be made by the Reference Court. If it is found that the computation of the amount payable incorporated in the consent awards is incorrect, the reference Court will have to exercise powers under Section 152 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 for correction of the awards. 6. It appears to us that with a view to ensure settlement of large number of cases before the Maha Lok Adalat, signatures of the claimants were obtained in the manner indicated in the petitions. After settlement before Lok Adalats, if the parties are forced to file another proceedings, the litigants will not have faith in the institution of Lok Adalats. Therefore, the Maharashtra Legal Services Authority will have to issue necessary directions. 7. Hence, we dispose of the petition by passing the following order: ORDER (i) We direct the parties to the references to appear before the learned District Judge I, at Malshiras on 18th February, 2013 at 11.00 a.m.; (ii) It will be open for the learned Judge to direct the Special Land Acquisition Officer (the 2nd respondent herein) to submit before him the calculations of the compensation payable to the petitioners in terms of the settlement incorporated in the consent awards; (iii) After the calculations are submitted by the Special Land Acquisition Officer and after giving an opportunity to the parties to submit objections thereto, the learned District Judge shall determine the amount of compensation payable to the claimants/petitioners; (iv) This exercise shall be completed within a period of three months from the date on which parties appear before the learned District Judge. The District Judge shall pass a reasoned order; (v) If the learned District Judge finds that the calculations incorporated in the consent awards are erroneous, the learned District Judge shall direct that the consent awards shall be corrected by exercising powers under sections 152 and 153 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 by incorporating the correct calculations; (vi) The compensation amounts shall be paid to the claimants or deposited with the District Court within a period of two months from the date on which determination of the compensation amounts is made by the learned District Judge; (vii) Needless to say that, before the Lok Adalat whenever there is a compromise between the parties in References under Section 18 of the said Act, care shall be taken to ensure that agreed calculations of compensation amount payable as per the compromise are incorporated in the consent Awards. If for some reasons, after arriving at settlement, the calculations are not ready, the references shall be kept before the next Lok Adalat. The practice of obtaining signatures on blank forms shall not be adopted; (viii) Rule is made absolute on above terms; (ix) We direct that a copy of this judgment/order shall be forwarded to the Secretary of the Maharashtra State Legal Services Authority to enable him to issue appropriate directions to the concerned District and Taluka Legal Services Authorities.