Rajesh Kumar Verma, J.—Heard Mr. Bindyachal Rai learned counsel for the petitioners (Railway), learned counsel for the Respondent Nos. 1 & 2 as well as learned counsel for the State.

2. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioners (Railway) for quashing the order and award dated 23.11.2013 passed by the National Lok Adalat, Sasaram in LA Case No. 278 of 2013 arising out of Land Acquisition Case No. 13 of 2007 whereby the Learned Lok Adalat has directed the petitioners (Railway) to pay the compensation to the husband and father of the Respondents at the rate of Rs. 51,000.00/- (fifty one thousand) per decimal along with solatium at the rate of 30% and interest as mentioned in the award.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the railway acquire piece of land having an area of 0.9325 acres under the Land Acquisition Act in which award was prepared by the Respondent No. 3 fixing the rate of land at Rs.20,00,000/-(Rupees twenty lakhs) and Rs. 12,16,000/-(Rupees twelve lakhs sixteen thousands) per acre (Rs. 20,000/- and Rs. 12,160/- per decimal respectively) and on that basis an award No.40 was prepared, the land in question was acquired in connection with construction for Ara, Sasaram railway line.

4. The husband and father of the private Respondents objected to the award prepared by the Respondent No. 3 and the matter was referred to the Reference Court of Sub Judge III, Sasaram. Husband and father of the private Respondents had claimed the enhanced compensation with regard to an area of 0.9325 acres. The petitioners railway took objection to the claim of husband and father of private Respondents for enhancement of the compensation. The reference case bearing LA No. 13 of 2007 filed before Sub-Judge III, Sasaram proceeded as per law and on various dates parties of the reference case appeared and filed their petition and documents in support of their claim and the case was proceeded for final adjudication based upon the respective case of the parties.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that suddenly the matter was referred to the Lok Adalat, the Lok Adalat can take cognizance of cases for compromise or settlement only when the case has been referred to the Lok Adalat in accordance with the provision prescribed under Section 20(1) and section 20(2) of the Lok Adalat Act and not otherwise. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that from a bare perusal of Section 26 of Act, it is mentioned that Section 20 of act deals with the cases in respect of which Lok Adalat can take cognizance including the procedure and manner how the cases to be brought before it and how they can be disposed by Lok Adalat. Sub-section (1) of section-20 stipulates that where in any cases referred to in clause 1 of the sub-section 5 of Section 19 i.e. in pending case before any court (a)the parties thereof agree for (b) one of the parties thereof makes an application to the court of referring the case to the Lok Adalat for settlement and if such court is prima facie satisfied that there are chances of such settlement (ii) the court is satisfied that the matter is an appropriate one to be taken cognizance or by the Lok Adalat. The court shall refer the case to the Lok Adalat provided that no case shall be referred to the Lok Adalat under sub-clause(b)of clause (i)or clause(ii)of sub- clause-I of Section-20 by such court except after giving a reasonable opportunity or being heard to the parties. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that in other words, “Lok Adalat can take cognizance of a pending cases before any court, only where the parties are either agree to refer the dispute to it or the court refers the dispute by its own after hearing the parties or at instance of anyone of the parties after hearing other parties and not otherwise.” Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that from bare perusal of the plaint of LA Case No.13 of 2007 it transpired that the State of Bihar was also a party b