inappropriate narration of facts or contents in any application cannot come in the way for considering or taking steps to meet up to the actual prayer made, or relief claimed in the same. The decision of the Ld. Division Bench in the case of Hans Raj and others (supra) is also distinguishable on the ground that the representations which were treated as not being proper applications under Section 18 of the L.A. Act were admittedly not, “within the prescribed limitation”. In the present case, however, that defect of limitation does not exist at all since admittedly the representations/applications were filed on behalf of the appellant on 27.04.2011 in relation to the first award passed two days earlier (on 25.04.2011) and the second one on that very date itself. It may be said that the heading or contents of those applications might be incomplete, and not in consonance with rigorous of Section 18 of the L.A. Act, but we cannot lose sight of the fact that the same were filed when admittedly its CWP No. 6171 of 2011 challenging the acquisition proceedings was itself pending. As such, their thrust in the form of objections to the notice under Section 9 of the L.A. Act in those applications/representations was perfectly understandable since the petitioner nursed a legitimate expectation that the writ petition might as well end up in its favour. It nevertheless also tried to safeguard its Right to adequate compensation by still incorporating the prayer to send reference to the competent Court in accordance with the provisions of law, as has already been noted in Para No. 1 above. In this view of the matter, considering that there is admittedly no prescribed format for an application for reference under Section 18 of the L.A. Act, coupled with the fact that the applications in this regard were submitted well within time and that the specific prayer for sending the reference was also
