(1) DELAY condoned.

(2) LEAVE granted.

(3) IN view of the fact that Mrs Naresh Bakshi, learned counsel took notice on behalf of the proposed legal representatives of the deceased Respondents 1, 2 and 9, the relevancy to give the particulars as pointed out by the office no longer subsists.

(4) THE only question is whether reference under Section 28-A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 is maintainable to the land acquired under the Defence of India Act. Initially, an extent of 1230.8 acres of land including the land of the respondents situated in Bhatinda in Punjab State was requisitioned for the purpose of defence of India. Obviously the acquisition was under Section 8 of the Requisitioning and Acquisition of Immovable Property Act, 1952. An arbitrator was appointed under Section 8(3 of the Act. The arbitrator in his award dated 19-1-1985 determined the amount of compensation. Subsequent thereto, a writ petition seeking direction for reference under Section 28-A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 as amended by Act 68 of 1984, was filed in the High court by the respondents.

(5) THE counsel appearing for the Union of India in the High court had conced