A local authority or company at whose instance acquisition has been made is not entitled to demand a reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.

( 1 ) ON there being difference of opinion between B. C. Varma, J. and Gulab Gupta, J. in this petition under Arts. 226 and 227 of the Constitution regarding interpretation of proviso to S. 50 (2) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, as to whether a reference can be claimed by a local body or company at whose instance the acquisition has been made, the case has been referred to me for resolving the differences.

( 2 ) THE petitioner M. P. State Co-operative Oilseed Growers Federation is a co-operative society registered under M. P. Co-operative Societies Act, 1960. The Society has set up a Soyabeen processing plant at Banapura, Tahsil Seoni-Malwa, for extraction of Soyabeen oil and manufacture of allied products and for that purpose had acquired 30 acres of land. The Society applied to the Collector on 1-8-1983 for acquisition of 1. 90 acres of land out of khasra No. 138/1 and 138/2 area 4. 75 acres belonging to the respondent No. 4 in village Damadiya adjacent to the Banapura railway station to be used as a railway siding for transport of its material. The S. D. O. Seoni-Malwa was appointed Land Acquisition Officer for this purpose and he directed the Society to deposit Rs. 3,33,224. 28 p/- towards the compensation to be determined for the land under acquisition failing which an undertaking should be given that the compensation so determined will be paid by the Society. Accordingly, the Society gave an undertaking on 6-9-1983 that it will pay the compensation that may be determined by the Land Acquisition Officer. The Society then applied for possession of the land on 1-10-1983. Notification underS. 4 of the Act was published in the M. P. Gazette on 4-11-1983 dispensing with the provision of S. 5-A of the Act. The Society was delivered possession of the land on 29-11-1983. Notification under S. 6 was published in the M. P. Gazette on 13-1-1984. In the meanwhile, land acquisition proceedings continued for determination of the compensation and award of Rs. 5,56,854. 25 p/- was given on 30-4-1984. However, the Society filed an application on 8-6-1984 under S. 18 for reference as it was not satisfied with the amount of compensation awarded. The application was returned by the Land Acquisition Officer saying that the Society has no locus standi to ask for a reference in view of proviso to S. 50 (2) of the Act. The Society then filed the present petition on 18-7-84 for quashing of the order and for a direction for making a reference. By subsequent amendment, the petitioner challenged the acquisition proceedings on the grounds (i) that the Land Acquisition Officer erred in awarding compensation contrary to the provisions of S. 23 of the Act by treating purely agricultural lands as building sites, (ii) there was no compliance to the provisions of part VII of the Act inasmuch as no agreement was got executed from the Society before proceeding with the acquisition, (iii) the Land Acquisition Officer failed to exclude 30% of the land for construction of roads etc. and (iv) the Land Acquisition Officer failed to give any opportunity to the Society for participating in the proceeding and adducing evidence in rebuttal for determination of the compensation. The State in its return mainly contended that against the impugned order there is alternative remedy of revision and before exhausting the same, straightway writ petition has been filed. As the acquired land is a diverted land for non-agricultural purpose, its market price has rightly been determined as a building site. The award is in accordance with law. The respondent No. 4 in his return contended that the writ petition is not maintainable as no reference lies at the instance of the Society in view of proviso to S. 50 (2) of the Act. The amount awarded is not at all excessive inasmuch as the market price of the land is 10 rupees square feet while the award has been given at the rate of Rs. 5. 75/- per sq. feet. There is no illegality in the impugned award and the petition i