JUDGMENT : 1. The appellants have called in question judgment and order dated 28.12.2004 passed by the learned District Judge, Udhampur, whereby reference made under section 18 of the J&K Land Acquisition Act (hereafter to be referred as the Act) has been dismissed. 2. It appears that a reference was made by the Collector Land Acquisition, Udhampur on the basis of an application made under section 18 of the Act to the said authority by applicants Jai Krishan, Bodh Raj and Harbans Lal as they have felt aggrieved of the rates assessed by the Collector for the land acquired by the State for laying down Railway Line on the land measuring 14 kanals 1 marlas in khasra No. 287 situated at village Tikri, District Udhampur. It also appears that during the pendency of the reference before the court below, Vasudev and Sriniwas made an application that they are the real owners of the acquired land and that original applicants, namely, Jai Krishan and Harbans Lal, who happen to be their sons had only acted on their behalf. It was prayed that they should be substituted and impleaded as petitioners in place of original applicants/their sons. Vide order dated 28.05.2004 passed by the learned District Judge, the application of Vasudev and Sriniwas was rejected. It also appears that third applicant, namely, Bodh Raj had made a statement before the District Judge on 27.12.2000 in which he had submitted that he would not prosecute the reference as a petitioner, whereafter nobody appeared on his behalf before the reference court. 3. After the dismissal of the application of Vasudev and Shriniwas, an application came to be filed by the respondents before the reference court seeking dismissal of the reference. During the pendency of the said application, the original applicants Jai Krishan and Harbans Lal filed an application before the reference court seeking permission to continue with the prosecution of the reference. 4. Learned reference court after hearing the parties and after considering the matter, dismissed the application of the original applicants and allowed the application filed by the respondents as a consequence whereof, the reference was held to be not maintainable. It is this order which is under challenge by way of instant appeal before this Court. 5. 4. Learned reference court after hearing the parties and after considering the matter, dismissed the application of the original applicants and allowed the application filed by the respondents as a consequence whereof, the reference was held to be not maintainable. It is this order which is under challenge by way of instant appeal before this Court. 5. The appellants have challenged the impugned order passed by the learned District Judge on the grounds that the appellants being coparceners have vested right in the ancestral property and as such, they have an independent right to challenge the award made in respect of the acquired land. It has been submitted that this aspect of the matter has not been considered by the learned District Judge. It is also contended that upon dismissal of application of fathers of the appellants, no objection given by them was withdrawn and as such, learned District Judge could not have rejected the claim of the appellants by holding that they have withdrawn from the prosecution of the reference. It has also been contended that no objection tendered by the appellants was limited only for the purposes of application filed by their fathers and once then application was rejected, no objection tendered by the appellants ceased to have any effect on the reference. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case including the record of the reference court and the impugned judgment. 7. Before coming to the contention raised by the appellants, it would be apt to notice certain facts which are relevant to the controversy. The father of the appellants Jai Krishan, Shri Vasudev and father of appellant Harbans Lal, Sriniwas, during the pendency of the reference filed an application for their substitution as petitioners in place of afore-named appellants. The said application came to be dismissed by the learned District Judge in terms of order dated 28.05.2004. While dismissing the said application, it was observed by the learned District Judge that the applicants have never appeared before the Collector and they had not sought any reference by making an application to the court, therefore, they cannot be impleaded/substituted as parties in the reference pending before the District Judge. While dismissing the said application, it was observed by the learned District Judge that the applicants have never appeared before the Collector and they had not sought any reference by making an application to the court, therefore, they cannot be impleaded/substituted as parties in the reference pending before the District Judge. It was also observed by the learned District Judge that it is only the original applicants i.e. appellants herein who had participated in the proceedings before the Collector in their own right and they had sought reference to the District Judge, as such, the reference at their instance can proceed further and not at the instance of the persons who had not appeared before the Collector and applied for reference to the District Judge. 8. The aforesaid observations of learned District Judge are absolutely in accordance with law because reference by the Collector is a pre-requisite for the District Judge to proceed further with the reference. It is only when Collector refuses to make any reference without any justification that the concerned person can move the High Court seeking a writ of mandamus but such a person has no right to move the District Judge directly. If the District Judge decides to hear a person at whose instance reference was not made and who was not a party before the Collector at the time of making the reference, the District Judge would be acting without jurisdiction. I am supported in my aforesaid view by the judgment of this Court in the case of Sarasvati and others vs Collector Land Acquisition, Bhaderwah and others, 1985 KLJ 275. Since the fathers of the appellants had not approached the Collector for reference, nor was any reference made by the Collector at their instance, as such, the learned District Judge has rightly rejected the application seeking their substitution as petitioners in the reference that was pending before the District Judge. 9. Another development which has taken place during the pendency of the reference before the District Judge is that the appellants made a statement before the learned District Judge on 31.01.2004 whereby they have clearly stated that they have no objection in case their fathers are impleaded as petitioners in their place as they are the owners of the property in question. They went a step further by stating that they are withdrawing from the reference. They went a step further by stating that they are withdrawing from the reference. This was done by the respondents while application of Vasudev and Sriniwas for their substitution as petitioners was pending before the District Judge. 10. Thus, it is a case where the appellants have voluntarily made a statement on oath before the District Judge that they are withdrawing from the reference, may be the appellants have made the said statement under the impression that their fathers will be impleaded as petitioners in their place, but the fact of the matter remains that the appellants have withdrawn from the reference and stated that it is Vasudev and Sriniwas, who are the owners of the acquired land. The appellants have therefore, abandoned their right to proceed with the reference. 11. Learned counsel for the appellants has laid much emphasis on the fact that the appellants have a vested right, being coparceners and that their withdrawal from the reference was conditional. It do not find any merit in the submission of the learned counsel for the appellants for the reason that appellants in their statements before the District Judge have clearly submitted that it is Vasudev and Sriniwas who were the owners of the property in question and even if, it is presumed that the appellants have a right in the property in question as coparceners still then, they have by making a categorical statement before the District Judge withdrawn from the reference, thereby abandoning their right to proceed with the reference. Having made a statement before the District Judge on oath, the appellants cannot now turn around and withdraw the said statement by contending that they were under the impression that the application of Vasudev and Sriniwas for their impleadment, would be allowed. 12. For the foregoing reasons, I do not find any illegality in the impugned order passed by the learned District Judge. The same does not call for any interference. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed. 13. Record of the reference court be sent back along with a copy of this judgment.