Judgment : 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Government Advocate. 2. The brief facts are as follows : 3. It is stated that respondent No.1, the Special Land Acquisition Officer for Bagalkot Town Development Authority had acquired land bearing Survey No.248/8C (part of Survey No.248/8) within the extent of 3 acres at Simikeri village, Bagalkot taluk, belonging to petitioner No.1 under the same notification. It is stated that land belonging to one Shankarappa Chanappa Antaragond to an extent of 5 acres and 6 guntas forming part of land bearing Survey No.248/8C and 248/8B was acquired for the purpose of providing water supply to Nav Nagar. It is stated that an award was passed dated 01.12.1995. It transpires that petitioner Nos.1(a) to (c), who are said to be the legal representatives of late Suresh Dharmashi. The petitioner had sought a reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 in L.A.C. No.536/1996 and had engaged the services of a counsel Sri S.M. Havaragi of Bagalkot. It is stated parallely the legal representatives of late Shankrappa Antaragond had sought reference under L.A.C. No.538/1996. Both the cases were referred to District Legal Services Authority, Bagalkot. The lands are said to be adjacent to each other and both are of similar nature and the fertility was also classified as one and the same. It is further stated that the case bearing L.A.C. No.538/1996 pertaining to Antaragond was taken up by the Lok Adalat on 04.04.2007 and it is further stated that the learned counsel appearing for Sri Antargond had stated that the compensation may be effected at the rate of Rs.4,13,820/- per acre treating the land as dry land along with the statutory benefits and had accordingly filed a compromise petition duly represented by the State on the other side. On the basis of the said compromise petition, an award was passed on the said land at Rs.4,13,820/- per acre with all statutory benefits. 4. It transpires that the petitioners' case was taken up on the next day, and inexplicably, the rate was fixed in respect of the petitioners' land at Rs.1,94,700/-with other statutory benefits. In retrospect, it was learnt that the difference in the award granted in respect of the Antaragond's land was opposed to the award in favour of the petitioners. It is in this circumstance that the petitioners have approached this Court. 5. In retrospect, it was learnt that the difference in the award granted in respect of the Antaragond's land was opposed to the award in favour of the petitioners. It is in this circumstance that the petitioners have approached this Court. 5. It is not in dispute that the petitioners were duly represented by counsel before the Legal Services Authority and that the counsel had affixed their signature to the compromise petition. Significantly, however, the petitioners had not affixed their signature to the compromise petition. It is this primary ground which is urged in this petition to contend that the compromise petition which was purportedly filed under Order XXIII Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as 'the C.P.C.' for brevity) was required to be signed by the parties to the compromise petition and since that is not forthcoming, the compromise petition would not be binding and given the circumstance that similarly placed land owners have been awarded higher compensation, as stated above, it results in a mis-carriage of justice and could be attributed inadvertence of the counsel who had appeared for the petitioners. In any event, it is contended that the petitioners ought to be entitled to just compensation comparable to the compensation that is awarded in respect of similar land, which is adjacent to the land of the petitioners. 6. The learned Additional Government Advocate, however, would point out that the compromise petition would be binding on the petitioners. The absence of their signatures is not withstanding and seeks to contend that the award was made as early as in the year 2007 and to reopen the matters at this stage would result in a misbalance where the petitioners would possibly claim higher compensation by way of interest or otherwise. 7. It is also pointed out that the petitioners having received the compensation at their request, cannot approbate and reprobate and seeks that petition be dismissed in that circumstance alone. 8. In the above facts and circumstances, the question before this Court is whether the petitioners would yet be entitled to additional compensation or for a reconsideration of their case after having received the compensation which was awarded, no doubt, apparently, at a rate muchless than was awarded in respect of similar lands. 8. In the above facts and circumstances, the question before this Court is whether the petitioners would yet be entitled to additional compensation or for a reconsideration of their case after having received the compensation which was awarded, no doubt, apparently, at a rate muchless than was awarded in respect of similar lands. From a reading of Order XXIII Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, it is evident that compromise of a proceeding would necessarily require that there is a lawful agreement and it should be in writing and signed by the parties. Since admittedly the compromise petition though signed by the counsel for the parties has not been signed by the parties and the further circumstance that similarly placed land owners have received much higher compensation, in fact atleast four times higher than what has been awarded to the petitioners, it would certainly be a case which would require the authority to reconsider the matter. 9. Notwithstanding that the award by way of compromise was before the Legal Services Authority, a Three Judge Bench of the Honourable Supreme Court has laid down in the case of State of Punjab and Another versus Jalour Singh and Others, reported in AIR 2008 Supreme Court 1209 that the writ petition would be maintainable in respect of a final order of the Legal Services Authority and which was a case decided in similar circumstance. The present writ petition is allowed. The impugned order at Annexure-D is quashed. However, since petitioners have received a partial benefit under the said order, it would be necessary for the authority to reconsider the case of petitioners while taking into account the money that may have been received by the petitioners and to award such other just compensation that the petitioners may be entitled to with other statutory benefits. 10. However, it is made clear, as rightly contended by learned Additional Government Advocate that the lacuna, if any, having been noticed by the petitioners at a late point of time, the petitioners would not be entitled to interest from the date of the order namely 05.04.2007 till the filing of this petition as on 20.01.2009. Therefore, the interest, if any, that would be applicable to the petitioners would be in the light of the above observations. Accordingly, petition stands disposed of.