Heard counsel for the parties.

2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent of the parties, heard finally.

3. This Revision application is filed being aggrieved by the order dated 19.8.2009, passed by learned Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Osmanabad in L.A.R. No.636 of 2000, thereby dismissing Land Acquisition Reference filed by the petitioner.

4. It is the case of the petitioner that the land bearing gat Nos.489/A and 488/B situated at village Washi, Tq.-Washi, District Osmanabad belonging to the petitioner have been acquired by the respondent authorities for the purpose of construction of percolation tank at village Washi. The Land Acquisition Officer has published notice U/sec.4 of the Land Acquisition Act on 24.3.1994.

5. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the award passed by the Land Acquisition Officer thereby granting inadequate compensation @ Rs.12,500/- per acre, the petitioner had preferred Land Acquisition Reference bearing No.636 of 2000 before the learned Joint C.J.S.D. Osmanabad. However, on 19.8.2009 the learned C.J.S.D. Osmanabad dismissed the petitioner's Reference petition on the ground that the petitioner has not led any evidence to show that the compensation granted by the S.L.A.O. is inadequate. Hence, this Revision.

6. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the order passed by learned Judge is without giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and therefore, the order impugned is against the principles of natural justice. It is further submitted that the Court below should not have dismissed the reference, merely on technicalities. It is further submitted that the Land Acquisition Reference, ought to have been decided on merits. The learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner, invited my attention to the grounds in the Civil Revision Application, and submitted that the impugned Judgment and Order deserves to be set aside. In support of his contention, the learned counsel for the revision petitioner, placed reliance on the reported Judgment of this Court, in case of Kawadu Madhav Bansod Vs. State of Maharashtra & another, reported in 2004(4) Bom.C.R. 495: [2004(1) ALL. MR 651]. Relying on the said Judgment the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner, would urge that the facts of the case in hand and the facts of the case which is cited supra are similar. In the said case this Court has taken a view that the reference cannot be rejected, only for the reason that the revision petitioner has failed to adduce any evidence. The learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner, invited my attention to para No.7 of the said judgment and submitted that in the interest of justice, the impugned Judgment and Order deserves to be set aside.

7. On the other hand, learned A.G.P. has justified the impugned judgment and order on the ground that the same cannot be faulted with any error and prayed for dismissal of the Revision.

8. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties at length. In my view, the impugned Judgment and Order deserves to be interfered with and required to be quashed and set aside. At the outset, it has to be clarified that the present Civil Revision Application is maintainable, in view of the law laid down by this Court in the case of Kawadu Madhav Bansod [2004(1) ALL MR 651] (supra), as the facts involved in the instant case are similar to the facts of that case.

9. Coming to the first contention of the Counsel appearing for the revision petitioner that Land Acquisition Reference should not have been rejected, on the ground of not filing documentary evidence is concerned, this Court in case of Kawadu Madhav Bansod [2004(1) ALL MR 651] (supra), has taken a view that the said order rejecting the reference on the ground of failure of the revision petitioner to adduce evidence cannot be taken to be adjudicated, and therefore, same cannot be treated to be an A ward. Therefore, the ground i.e. no documentary evidence is filed by