Ashok B. Hinchigeri, J.

Sri R.B. Sathyanarayana Singh, the learned High Court Government Pleader is directed to take notice for the respondent.

2. The petitioners have called into question, the order, dated 20.02.2013 (Annexure-F) passed by the Court of Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Gubbi (Reference Court) in L.A.C. No. 255/2006, dismissing the petitioners' three LAs. - for bringing the legal representatives of the claimant on record, for setting aside the abatement and for the condonation of delay in making the application for setting aside the abatement.

3. The facts of the case in brief are that the claimant's lands measuring 3 acres and 1 acre 10 guntas standing at Sy.Nos. 19 and 20 respectively of Boodathimmanahalli, Gubbi Taluk were acquired for the purpose of constructing a tank. As she was not satisfied with the award passed by the respondent, she sought the reference invoking Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 ('L.A. Act' for short). On the reference being sent, it was registered as L.A.C. No. 255/2006 on the file of the Reference Court. She passed away on 19.09.2010 during the pendency of the said proceedings. On 3.10.2012, her legal representatives made the LA.s for the purpose of coming on record. The Reference Court' dismissed them mainly on the ground that they have not produced the heirship certificate and that no acceptable explanation is offered for condoning the delay of over two years.

4. Sri M.B. Chandrachood, the learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that this Court by its order, dated 12.12.2012 in W.P. Nos. 49837839/2012 has quashed the similar orders passed by the Reference Court. He submits that the respondent has awarded a paltry sum of 10,000/- for acquiring 4 acres 10 guntas of the lands.

5. Sri R.B. Sathyanarayana Singh, the learned High Court Government Pleader submits that as one of the legal representatives of the deceased claimant has identified the LTM of the claimant at the time of service of notice on her, the knowledge of the pendency of LAC proceedings can be attributed to them. He would therefore pray for the dismissal of these petitions.

6. It is trite that when the lands are compulsorily acquired for a public purpose, the landowner is entitled to get the fair and just compensation. If the reference applicant does not prosecute the matter diligently or if he dies and his legal representatives do not make the necessary applications within the prescribed period, to come on record, the respondent's award, which is only in the nature of an offer, does not attain the finality. That amounts to approving of the respondent's award determining the market value. As held by the Apex Court in the case of Khazan Singh (Dead) by LRs Vs. Union of India, reported in (2002) 2 SCC 242, the non-participation of a party would not confer jurisdiction on the Reference Court to dismiss the reference for default. It is impermissible to dismiss the reference for default.

7. When once a reference is made under Section 18 of the L.A. Act, then the Reference Court is bound to issue notice to all the persons interested in the reference and proceed to determine the reference under Section 20 and make an award under Section 26 of the L.A. Act, even if the person at whose instance the reference is made, fails to appear before the Reference Court or fails to produce evidence in support of his evidence. The Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of Mangilal Vs. State of M.P., reported in AIR 1991 NOC 98 (Madhya Pradesh) has held as follows:

"It is manifest that when once a reference under S. 18 of the Land Acquisition Act is made, then the Court has to make an award under S.26 of the Act even if the person at whose instance the reference is made fails to appear before the Court or fails to produce evidence in support of his petition. In a reference proceeding under the provisions of S. 18 of the Land Acquisition Act there cannot be any dismissal or abatement of the reference proceeding. A proceeding under S.18