( 1 ) IN this petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution of india, the main prayer of the petitioner is that the respondents had taken possession of the land belonging to them after the same has been acquired under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"), but no compensation was given with regard to the crops which were standing thereon. The claim of the petitioners, is that an appropriate writ should be issued to the respondents to make payment in respect thereof. In supprot of this claim, the petitioners relied on Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Motibhai Paragbhai and ors. v. State of Gujarat and Ors. , [1994 (2)] XXXV (2) GLR 1105.

( 2 ) WHEN this petition came up for preliminary hearing rule was issued. At that time, the attention of the Division Bench was drawn to the said judgment in motibhai Paragbhais case. The Bench, however, was of the opinion that as the attention of the Court in Motibhai Paragbhais case has not been drawn to the provisions of Sec. 12 of the Act and further that the attention has also not been drawn to the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of the Addl. Special Land acquisition Officer, Bangalore v. Thakoredas, Major and Ors. , AIR 1994 SC 2227, the writ petition should be listed before a Full Bench. It is for that reason this petition has been heard by the present Bench.

( 3 ) IN order to examine the rival contentions, we may briefly state the relevant facts which are not in dispute. The land of the petitioners was acquired for the purpose of constructing a canal known as "karjan Water Reservoir". A notification under Sec. 4 of the Act was issued on 3rd March, 1987. This notification was published in the Govt. Gazette on 10th September 1987. It seems that even before the Land Acquisition Collector gave an award, the possession of the land in question was taken over by the acquiring authority on 15th December, 1987. The award, in respect of the said land, was made by the Collector on 28th April 1988.

( 4 ) IT is not in dispute that neither any application was filed nor a request made for reference being made under Sec. 18 of the Act within the prescribed period. From the present writ petition which has been filed, it appears that it was only on 29th July 1993 that an application was filed before the Executive Engineer of karjan Water Reservoir claiming compensation for the crops which were stated to have been standing on the lands when possession thereof was taken. Initially, a reply was sent to the effect that the matter was under examination. But subsequently the claim of the petitioners was not accepted. Thereafter, the present petition has been filed under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India.

( 5 ) ON behalf of the respondents an objection which has been taken is that the present petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India should not be entertained. The submission is that, if the petitioners had any grievance with regard to nonpayment of compensation in respect of crops which were stated to have been standing at the time when possession was taken, then the remedy of the petitioners was to file an application under Sec. 18 of the Act for reference to the Court. This not having been done the writ Court cannot circumvent that procedure and direct the examination of the claim of the petitioners. It is also submitted by the learned counsel for the respondents that the aforesaid decision of this Court in Motibhai paragbhais case is no longer a good law. Our attention has been drawn to the order of the Supreme Court passed in Sepcial Leave Petition No. 14235 of 1994 which was filed by the State of Gujarat against the aforesaid judgment in Motibhai paragbhais case while claiming to set aside the judgment of this Court. The supreme Court, however, observed that :"we have heard the Counsel for the petitioner. Though we are not happy with the exercise of the power under Art. 226 by the High Court in a ma