WP(C) 918/2009 BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B.K. SHARMA Heard Mr. B. Nath, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Ms. R. Chokraborty, learned Addl. Sr. Govt. Advocate. By means of this application, the petitioner has prayed for a direction to the respondents, more particularly the respondent No. 3 i.e., the Deputy Com missioner, Cachar to refer L.A. Case No. 36/2005-2006 to the competent Civil Cou rt for determination by a just and appropriate compensation for the acquisition of the land covered by Dag Nos. 91, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 100, 123, 124, 125 in Patta No. 1 situated at Village- Kalinagar T.E., under Mouza- Joyanagar, Distric t Cachar. The prayer so made is under 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1984. Mr. Na th, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that since the petitioner had mad e Annexure-4 application under Section-18 of the said Act to the Deputy Commiss ioner, Cachar, Silchar on 05.05.2008, the Deputy Commissioner is bound to make a reference to the Civil Court in respect of the claim of the petitioner. On the other hand, Ms. R. Chokraborty, learned State counsel referring to the counter a ffidavit filed on behalf of the respondent No. 2, submits that since the award h as not been finally drawn, there is no question of making any reference under Se ction 18 of the Act. It is on record that the petitioner has been paid 80% of the awarded amo unt and the same was accepted by the petitioner under protest as will be evident from Annexure -3 document dated 24.03.2008. It is submitted by the learned coun sel for the petitioner that the stand of the respondents in their counter affida vit is absolutely incorrect inasmuch as unless the award is not drawn, the petit ioner would not have been paid any compensation. This Court noticing the aforesaid facts rightly directed the learned Sta te counsel to obtain instruction vide orders dated 30.06.2009, 27.07.2009 and 2 1.08.2009. However, Ms. R. Chokraborty, learned State counsel submits that she h as not been furnished with any instruction. Mr. Nath, learned counsel for the petitioner referring to the decision o f the Apex Court reported in 2003 (3) SCC 128 (Sharda Devi vs. State of Bihar & ors), submits that when an application is made under Section 18 of L.A. Act, the authority is bound to make a reference to the Civil Court. It is not the case of the respondents that the petitioner has not fulfil led the very requisites for reference under Section 18 of the Act. In view of th e above, the writ petition is allowed directing the respondents, more particular ly the respondent No. 3, to make necessary reference of the application referred to above. Let the reference be made as expeditiously as possible, but at any ra te, not later than 30.06.2011. Writ petition is disposed of.