Judgment Ravi R. Tripathi, J.—Mr. Vijay Raval, learned advocate for the petitioners states that so far as Special Civil Application No. 14839 of 2012 and Special Civil Application No. 15363 of 2012 are concerned, Rule is already issued, whereas, other petitions i.e. Special Civil Application Nos. 26 of 2013; Special Civil Application Nos. 18 of 2013; Special Civil Application Nos. 27 of 2013 and Special Civil Application Nos. 29 of 2013 - are concerned, Rule is yet to be issued. 2. Rule in Special Civil Application Nos. 26 of 2013; Special Civil Application Nos. 18 of 2013; Special Civil Application Nos. 27 of 2013 and Special Civil Application Nos. 29 of 2013. Mr. RA Rindhani, learned AGP waives service of notice of rule on behalf of respondent-State. 3. At the request of learned advocate for the petitioners to which learned AGP Mr. Rindhani has no objection, the Special Civil Applications are taken up for final hearing. These petitions are filed on the ground that the applications filed by the petitioners herein to the Special Land Acquisition Officer, Narmada Yojana (Shethi), Unit No. 9, Nadiad on 01.03.1996 for making a reference under Section-18 of the Land Acquisition Act did not culminate in to a reference. 4. On the earlier date of hearing, the respondents were asked to file an affidavit and state before the Court whether the applications filed under Section-18 of the Land Acquisition Act were received by the concerned authority and if the same were received, any reference was filed or not? In affidavit which is filed by one Shri Mukesh Magalbhai Patel, Incharge, Land Acquisition Officer, Nadiad-I affirmed on 06.05.2013, it is stated in Paragraph-E and in Paragraph-F as under:— “(E) It is respectfully submitted that on a perusal of original reference register, as it clearly appears that in the month of March 1996 or thereabout, no such entry with respect to Survey No. 394-B of the petitioner is found out. The aforesaid facts clearly suggest that at the relevant time no such application was made to the authority for making reference. Hereto annexed and marked as Annexure-R-III is the Xerox copy of relevant pages of the reference register. The aforesaid facts clearly suggest that at the relevant time no such application was made to the authority for making reference. Hereto annexed and marked as Annexure-R-III is the Xerox copy of relevant pages of the reference register. (F) It is respectfully submitted that to find out the original inward register, a joint Rojkam has been carried out in the office of Respondent No. 2 in the presence of Five members of Class-III and two members of Class- IV wherein it is found that the office of Respondent No. 2 is maintaining the inward registered, however, as it appears that inward register of the year 1996 is not traceable. A detail of the inward registers traceable in the office is annexed and marked as Annexure- R-IV in the form of Rojkam.” 5. Learned advocate for the petitioners invited attention of the Court to Annexure-’III’ produced along with this affidavit-in-reply and submitted that the said document is not depicting a true and correct picture of the facts existing in reality. In this regard, he referred to the references which were made and decided by the Court with regard to the notification which were issued on the same date or on the nearby dates pertaining to the same village. This makes it clear that the documents which are produced by the deponent i.e. In-charge, Land Acquisition Officer are not sufficient, on which the petitioners can be non-suited, specially, when their important right of getting compensation is at stake. 5.1 Learned advocate for the petitioners also submitted that the judicial notice can be taken of the fact that the petitioners will not miss to file applications for making references, specially, when it is a question of their livelihood as their land is acquired. 5.2 Learned AGP is not able to dislodge the aforesaid submission and therefore, this Court is of the opinion that the petitions are required to be allowed and the same are accordingly allowed. The copy of the applications under Section-18 of the Act be furnished by the petitioners to the concerned authority within 10 days from today. On receipt of such applications, the authority is directed to make a reference to the concerned Court. 6. The copy of the applications under Section-18 of the Act be furnished by the petitioners to the concerned authority within 10 days from today. On receipt of such applications, the authority is directed to make a reference to the concerned Court. 6. Taking into consideration, the age of the dispute, it is deemed proper that the concerned Court be directed to give priority to these references and decide the same as early as possible and not later than six months from the date of receipt of the references to the concerned authority. It goes without saying that the authority shall abide by aforesaid directions and make the references immediately on receiving the applications of the petitioners. With this direction, the petitions are allowed. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent.