JUDGMENT - MAHAJAN S.G., J.:—Rule returnable forthwith by consent of the learned Counsel for revision petitioner and the learned AGP for respondents.

2.This revision is directed against the judgment and order dated 30-12-02 passed by Civil Judge, Senior Division, Yavatmal, in Land Acquisition Case No. 146 of 1997, whereby he dismissed the reference made to the Civil Court under section 18(1) of Land Acquisition Act.

3.The land bearing Survey No. 67/2 of village Borgaon owned by the present revision petitioner, who is the applicant in the Land Acquisition Case was acquired in the land acquisition proceedings bearing No. L.A.C./2/47/94-95 of mouza Borgaon by the Special Land Acquisition Officer, Minor Irrigation Works II Yavatmal. The Land Acquisition Officer passed an award. As the revision petitioner was not satisfied with the amount of compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer he applied to the Collector for making a reference and a reference was made by the Collector accordingly under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act for the enhancement of compensation to the Civil Court, Yavatmal.

4.The proceedings of Land Acquisition Case No. 146/97 were taken before the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Yavatmal. On the date on which the case was fixed for evidence the revision petitioner remained absent. His Counsel was also not present. So no evidence came to be adduced by the revision petitioner. The learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Yavatmal therefore dismissed the reference by the judgment and order as stated above, which are impugned in this revision.

5.The question is whether the revision would lie against the above judgment and order. As per section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, an appeal lies only in any proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act to the High Court from the award or from any part of the award of the Court (Civil Court). The learned Counsel for revision petitioner canvassed that in this case the judgment and order passed by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Yavatmal is not an award and hence no appeal would lie against the said judgment and order. It is his submission that the requirements of award as per section 26(1) of the Land Acquisition Act are not fulfilled. The provision of section 26(1) of Land Acquisition Act reads as below:

"Every award under this part shall be in writing signed by the Judge, and shall specify the amount awarded under Clause first of sub-section (1) of section 23, and also the amounts (if any) respectively awarded under each of the other clauses of the same sub-section, together with the grounds of awarding each of the said amount."

He therefore, submitted that the order passed by the Civil Judge, Senior Division, in the aforesaid case cannot be regarded to be an award since the same is not in the form of section 26(1) of the Land Acquisition Act.

6.Shri, Doifode the learned AGP submitted that any adjudication made by the Civil Court on the reference would be an award irrespective of the fact whether the enhanced compensation is given or not.

7.It is true that the adjudication made by the Civil Court on the reference has to be regarded as an award, whether an enhanced compensation is given or not. But in that event the Court should consider the material on record, even if the party is absent and has failed to adduce evidence. Unless the material on record is considered the order cannot be said to be an adjudication. In the instant case the ground given for the dismissal of reference by the Civil Court is that the applicant (present revision petitioner) remained absent and did not adduce any evidence to show that a proper compensation was not paid to him and that he is entitled to more compensation than paid. The above order clearly shows that the reference was dismissed only for the reason of failure of the applicant (present revision petitioner) to adduce evidence. Thus the material on record is not considered by the Civil Court. It is not considered as to how t

Click Here to Read the rest of this document