ORDER Aggrieved by rejection of application under Section 53 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 read with Section 151 CPC, the petitioner-Steel Authority of India Ltd. has preferred the present writ petition. 2. The facts stated in the writ petition are briefly summarised thus : The petitioner is a Government of India Company registered under Section 617 of the Companies Act, 1956. The respondents namely, Prayag Chandra Kejriwal and Santosh Kumar Kejriwal are plaintiffs in L.A. Reference Case No. 2/1998 and L.A. Reference Case No. 3/1998 in which initially the petitioner-SAIL was not made party. However, an application dated 29.07.1999 under Order I Rule 10 CPC was filed and SAIL was made party vide order dated 05.08.1999. After its name was added in L.A. Reference cases, the petitioner submitted written statement with objection application on 05.04.2000 and also filed application dated 01.02.2001 for recall of order dated 05.08.1999 which was rejected by order dated 14.02.2001. The petitioner preferred Revision Application Nos. 98/2001 and 120/2001 against order dated 14.02.2001. In the meantime, the awardees who sought attachment of properties of the judgment debtor/State of Bihar initiated Garnishee proceeding against the petitioner which were numbered as Miscellaneous Applications. The Miscellaneous Applications were dismissed by the trial court by order dated 14.06.2000 which was challenged by the State of Bihar before this Court. The Miscellaneous Appeals preferred by the State of Bihar and Civil Revision Applications of the petitioner were heard together and the Civil Revision Applications filed by the petitioner were dismissed vide order dated 15.12.2001. The order passed in Civil Revision Applications was challenged unsuccessfully by the petitioner before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The petitioner thereafter, filed application under Section 53 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and under Section 151 CPC challenging maintainability of the L.A. Reference Case No. 2/1998 arising out of L.A. Case No. 195/6566 which has been dismissed by the impugned order dated 21.06.2011. 3. A counter-affidavit has been filed raising serious objection to the writ petition. It is stated that after the parties led their evidence and the matter was fixed for hearing, the application dated 26.05.2011 was filed. The petitioner-SAIL has admitted its liability still, on frivolous grounds application dated 26.05.2011 was filed. 3. A counter-affidavit has been filed raising serious objection to the writ petition. It is stated that after the parties led their evidence and the matter was fixed for hearing, the application dated 26.05.2011 was filed. The petitioner-SAIL has admitted its liability still, on frivolous grounds application dated 26.05.2011 was filed. The prayer for calling record of L.A. Case No. 195/6566 from the office of District Land Acquisition Officer, Bokaro for deciding the maintainability of the L.A. Reference Case No. 2/1998 has rightly been rejected by trial court. It is further submitted that similar issue was raised by the petitioner-SAIL which was dismissed vide order dated 14.02.2001. The said order attained finality after dismissal of Civil Revision Applications and the Special Leave Petition filed by the petitioner. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner refers to Annexure4 which is an order passed in L.A. Reference Case No. 45/86 and submits that on similar plea raised by the petitioner, the learned trial court has called for the entire case record of L.A. Case No. 206/7374 from the office of the District Land Acquisition Officer, Bokaro and therefore, in the present case also, the learned trial court should have allowed Application dated 26.05.2011 and called for record of L.A. Case No. 195/1965-66. It is further submitted that in the reference case there are several infirmities such as, no date of publication of award has been mentioned and though, the applicants have stated that they came to know about award dated 10.02.1976, no documentary evidence has been produced by them in support thereof. The documents on record do not indicate that the Collector after satisfying himself of the mandatory requirement under Section 12, 18 and 19 of the Land Acquisition Act referred the matter to the Reference Court. In these facts, it is submitted that the record of L.A. Case No. 195/1965-66 is necessary for adjudicating the validity of reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. 6. The learned counsel appearing of the private respondent nos. 1 and 2 opposes the writ petition and relying on stand taken in the counter-affidavit submits that the application dated 26.05.2011 was not only barred by resjudicata, it was frivolous and thus, liable to be dismissed with cost. 7. 6. The learned counsel appearing of the private respondent nos. 1 and 2 opposes the writ petition and relying on stand taken in the counter-affidavit submits that the application dated 26.05.2011 was not only barred by resjudicata, it was frivolous and thus, liable to be dismissed with cost. 7. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent-State of Jharkhand also raises serious objection to the maintainability of the writ petition. 8. I have carefully considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents on record. 9. Before examining the validity of order dated 21.06.2011, the brief history of the case is required to be noticed. It is not in dispute that for construction of Iron and Steel Plant at Bokaro, Notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was published on 09.08.1956 and 21.04.1964. After the award was prepared, application was filed by the awardees and compensation amount awarded by the Collector was enhanced. In the Execution case filed by the awardees for realisation of the award amount, application for attaching properties of the judgment-debtor/State of Bihar was filed. The State of Bihar filed objection under Section 47 CPC contending that the SAIL is liable to pay compensation amount as land was acquired for the purpose of the Plant. Some of the decree holders also filed application under Order XXI Rule 46 CPC for attaching the property of the Bokaro Steel Plant and thus, for issuing Garnishee Orders. The Petitioner-SAIL denied its liability. Though, it denied its liability, the Managing Director of Bokaro Steel Plant was already added as a party in F.A. No. 46/91(R) which was filed by the State of Bihar against the award passed in the Reference Case No. 360/1976. Miscellaneous Cases registered in the pending execution proceeding were dismissed by order dated 14.06.2000 which was challenged by the State of Bihar by filing 19 Miscellaneous appeals being Miscellaneous Appeal No. 116/2000(R) and batch cases. In the meantime, application under Rule 1 Order 10 CPC was filed on 29.07.1999 in L.A. Reference Case No. 2/1998 for impleading SAIL, which was allowed on 05.08.1999. The petitioner appeared on 23.08.1999 and filed written statement with objection on 05.04.2000. It also filed application dated 01.02.2001 seeking recall of order dated 05.08.1999 whereby it was added as party. In the meantime, application under Rule 1 Order 10 CPC was filed on 29.07.1999 in L.A. Reference Case No. 2/1998 for impleading SAIL, which was allowed on 05.08.1999. The petitioner appeared on 23.08.1999 and filed written statement with objection on 05.04.2000. It also filed application dated 01.02.2001 seeking recall of order dated 05.08.1999 whereby it was added as party. The application dated 01.02.2001 came to be dismissed by order dated 14.02.2001, challenging the same, the petitioner preferred Civil Revision Nos. 98 and 120 of 2001. The Miscellaneous Appeal No. 116/2000(R) and batch cases were heard along with Revision Nos. 98 and 120 of 2001 and by a common order dated 15.12.2001, the Civil Revision applications filed by the petitioner were dismissed. The petitioner unsuccessfully challenged order dated 15.12.2001 in SLP(C) Nos. 13880-13881 of 2002. The order dated 02.09.2003 passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Special Leave Petition filed by the petitioner discloses that the only plea raised by the petitioner was that the land acquisition proceeding was not initiated at its instance and thus, it is not liable to pay compensation. Order dated 14.02.2001 passed in L.A. Reference Case No. 2/1998 dismissing the application dated 01.02.2001 discloses that the petitioner raised the question of limitation under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. The awardees contested the issue stating that notice under Section 12(2) of the Act was issued on 31.01.1976 and Reference was made within time. In order dated 14.02.2001, the learned Judge has noticed as under : "During the course of argument and also in para 9 of W.S. cum Objection Petition, it has been stated that for Bokaro Steel Limited compensation amount at the rate of 1900 till 1956 and at the rate of 3800 from 1964 and afterwards have been deposited". With reference to question of limitation in seeking reference, the trial court has found as under: "In this connection it has been said that if award has been made on 31.01.1976 or before and an application has been presented on 16.02.1976 then it will be time barred u/s 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. From the perusal of the reference petition it is found that the application has been filed by the applicants for reference to this Court on 15.02.1976. Notice u/s 12(2) of the L.A. Act were issued on 31.01.1976. From the perusal of the reference petition it is found that the application has been filed by the applicants for reference to this Court on 15.02.1976. Notice u/s 12(2) of the L.A. Act were issued on 31.01.1976. The applicants knew about the inadequate award money on 10.02.76 when they received a notice and so the present application for Reference dated 15.02.1976 is within time.......” 10. As noticed above, order dated 14.02.2001 became final after dismissal of the Special Leave Petition vide order dated 02.09.2003. More than seven years thereafter, the present application dated 26.05.2011 was filed by the petitioner at the stage of hearing, raising a similar question of maintainability of the Reference on the ground of delay. By no stretch of imagination a public sector company which has able legal assistance could have filed application dated 26.05.2011. The said application was filed without due care and attention and without proper application of mind. In a case in which Notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act was issued wayback in the year, 1956 and the plea of limitation taken by the petitioner must be deemed to have been rejected after the dismissal of Special Leave Petition on 02.09.2003, the petitioner-SAIL has rightly not been permitted to raise the same issue and its application has rightly been dismissed vide impugned order dated 21.06.2011. A public sector company is under a duty to act fairly and adopt a fair procedure in its dealings with public. A litigation initiated by the petitioner-SAIL cannot be for profiting itself but public interest is also required to be kept in mind. It is noticed that the petitioner-SAIL has admitted its liability and the learned counsel of the respondents informs the Court that SAIL has already deposited a part of compensation amount. Frivolous litigation not only results in wastage of public money, it consumes precious time of the Court and no litigant can be permitted to abuse process of law by filing frivolous petition. Time and again the Hon'ble Supreme Court has reminded that litigation cannot be encouraged at the instance of an unscrupulous litigant who wants litigation to turn into a fruitful industry. In “Indian Council for Enviro Legal Action v. Union of India” reported in (2011) 8 SCC 161 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed thus : 191. Time and again the Hon'ble Supreme Court has reminded that litigation cannot be encouraged at the instance of an unscrupulous litigant who wants litigation to turn into a fruitful industry. In “Indian Council for Enviro Legal Action v. Union of India” reported in (2011) 8 SCC 161 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed thus : 191. “In consonance with the principles of equity, justice and good conscience Judges should ensure that the legal process is not abused by the litigants in any manner. The court should never permit a litigant to perpetuate illegality by abusing the legal process. It is the bounden duty of the court to ensure that dishonesty and any attempt to abuse the legal process must be effectively curbed and the court must ensure that there is no wrongful, unauthorised or unjust gain for anyone by the abuse of the process of the court. …...............No one should be permitted to use the judicial process for earning undeserved gains or unjust profits. The court must effectively discourage fraudulent, unscrupulous and dishonest litigation”. 11. In the present writ petition, the petitioner has admitted as under : 13. “That thereafter in a proceedings in F.A. No. 45/91 and 46/91 the petitioner agreed to pay all the liability whether past or future with respect to the acquisition proceedings for Bokaro Steel Plant and therefore, the contest in the garnishing proceedings lost its force.” 12. The present writ petition was filed on 28.07.2011 however, no effective step was taken by the petitioner for a decision on merits. When the matter was listed before me on 04.02.2014, the learned counsel for the petitioner sought adjournment for seeking instruction in the matter and accordingly, the matter was listed on 05.02.2015. After arguing for sometime, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner sought adjournment for ascertaining whether the hearing in the L.A. Reference Case No. 2/98 has been concluded or not. After the recess, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner would not take any adjournment and it would cooperate during the trial and he sought permission to withdraw the writ petition. However, in view of the history of the case, permission to withdraw the writ petition was refused. After the recess, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner would not take any adjournment and it would cooperate during the trial and he sought permission to withdraw the writ petition. However, in view of the history of the case, permission to withdraw the writ petition was refused. The learned counsel for the petitioner again refers to order passed in L.A. Reference Case No. 45/1986 and submits that since identical issue is involved in the present case also, record of L.A. Case No. 195/6566 should have been called by the trial court. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the application dated 26.05.2011 was filed under a bonafide impression that the entire award is collusive. The record of another case which was ordered by the Land Acquisition Judge has still not been received. I find that the plea taken by the petitioner has been rightly rejected by the trial court. After the parties closed their evidence and the matter was posted for hearing, the present application was filed on 26.05.2011. The plea taken by the petitioner that for ascertaining the fact whether the reference under Section 18 of the Act was made within the time or not and therefore, for that purpose entire record of L.A. Case No. 195/1965-66 should have been called for from the office of the District Land Acquisition Officer has rightly been rejected by the trial court. The plea that the reference was not made within the period of limitation under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, was raised by the petitioner in earlier proceeding unsuccessfully. Admittedly, the petitioner has not challenged the Award on the ground of fraud, collusion, etc. I find no force in the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner. The writ petition lacks merit and accordingly, it is dismissed. The learned counsel for the respondent nos. 1 and 2 informs the court that hearing in L.A. Case No. 2/1998 is in advance stage. In view of the facts noticed above, I hereby direct the learned L.A. Judge, Bokaro to conclude the hearing of L.A. Reference Case Nos. 02/98 and 03/98 within next six months. No adjournment to the parties should be granted without just cause. It is further ordered that if the learned judge faces any difficulty in concluding the hearing within six months, he may approach this Court. 13. 02/98 and 03/98 within next six months. No adjournment to the parties should be granted without just cause. It is further ordered that if the learned judge faces any difficulty in concluding the hearing within six months, he may approach this Court. 13. I.A. No. 3292 of 2012 and I.A. No. 2012 of 2014 stand disposed of. Appeals disposed of.