Ujjal Bhuyan, J.

Registry to register this reference as a separate proceeding.

2. We have heard Mr. C. Lalfakzuala, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Samuel Vanlalhriata Chhangte, learned Government Advocate for the State respondents.

3. This matter is before us (Division Bench) on a reference made by the learned Single Judge taking a view different from the views expressed by concurrent Bench in previous writ petitions.

4. Question which has been referred to us for decision is as under:-

"Whether a writ petition claiming interest and solatium under the Land Acquisition Act of 1894, which power vests with the Reference Court under Section 23 (1A) and 23(2) thereof, is maintainable in the absence of any reference being made to the Court in terms of section 18 of the Act and that too when the petitioner has already accepted the awarded compensation?"

5. Though it may not be necessary to refer to in details the factual narrative of the case, however, for placing the reference in the correct perspective, it would be apposite to extract the order dated 19.08.2015 of the learned Single Judge while making the reference as the said order has succinctly summed up the factual position. Relevant portion of the order dated 19.08.2015 reads as under:-

"1. The petitioner by the name of Young Lal Association (YLA) is before this Court with a prayer for a direction to the respondents to pay solatium and interest on the amount awarded and paid to the petitioner under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. At the outset, it is also observed that the petitioner have placed reliance upon three orders of this Court i.e. WP (C) 109/2014, WP (C) 110/2014 and WP (C) 119/2014 to say in matters of similar nature, this Court had directed the respondents to take steps for payment of solatium as well as interest at the rate of 30% and 12% respectively to the petitioner within a period of 6 (six) months from the date of the orders.

2. Land was acquired by the Mizoram State Government represented by the Public Works Department, for construction of New 2-Lane Highway from NH-54 near Lawngtlai to Indo-Myanmar Border in Mizoram to support Kaladan Multi-Modal Transit Transport Project in Phase 'A' of SARDP-NE. Pursuant to issue of Notification under Section 4 and declaration under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 a Draft Award was prepared to the tune of Rs. 46,059,673/- which included amongst others, an Additional 12% interest on the principal amount. Pursuant thereto, apportionment of the amount was made in favour of the land owners as indicated in the Chart annexed to the writ petition at page 13. It appears from the Chart that the name of the petitioner organization figures at serial No. 33 and the compensation awarded stands at Rs. 54,00,000/- (Rupees fifty four lakhs only). The petitioner submits that the said amount has since been received from the concerned authority.

3. With regard to payment of solatium and interest, it is the case of the petitioner that representation had been made which, however, did not evoke any response. Constrained thus, the petitioner is before this Court for appropriate relief seeking a direction to the respondents for payment of solatium and interest.

4. The entitlement of the relief claimed has to be judged having regard to the statutory provisions under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. Part III of the said Act and more particularly Section 18 thereof, envisages that any person interested who has not accepted the award may make an application to the Collector requiring the matter to be referred to the Collector for the determination of the Court, whether the objection be to the measurement of the land, the amount of compensation etc. "Court" is defined in Section 3 (d) to mean the principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction. Part III of the said Act postulates that upon reference being made by the Collector to the Court, the procedure as envisaged from Section 20 onwards comes into play. Under Secti