petitioners had submitted the applications for making reference to the Civil Court under Section 18 of the Act of 1894 but, since, by virtue of provisions of Section 3J of the Act of 1956, the provisions of the Act of 1894 do not apply to land acquisition under the Act of 1956, the Competent Authority ought to have refused to entertain the said applications. It is submitted that without there being any dispute raised from either side, the Competent Authority made reference to the District Collector as if a dispute was raised in terms of provisions of Section 11 of Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 ('the Act of 1996') and the Arbitrator entered reference to make an award in accordance with the provisions of the Act of 1956. Accordingly, it is submitted that the action of the District Collector in assuming jurisdiction of an Arbitrator under the provisions of Section 3G of the Act of 1956, is illegal, arbitrary and without jurisdiction. It is further submitted that the Arbitrator could have acquired jurisdiction only when a party to the proceedings under the Act of 1956 had submitted an application under Section 11 of the Act of 1996 raising a dispute with regard to correctness of determination of the amount of compensation by the competent authority. It is submitted that the respondent no.1 never raised a dispute that the compensation has been wrongly determined and it is required to be reduced. It is submitted that on the contrary, on an application being submitted by the petitioners
