1. These Revision Applications are tendered against judgment and award passed by the Extra Jt. Civil Judge, Senior Division, Latur on 1st August, 2011 in a group of Land Acquisition References.

2] Agricultural lands belonging to the applicants – original claimants came to be acquired for irrigation project of village Kalkot, Tq. Chakur. After following procedure prescribed under the Land Acquisition Act, the Land Acquisition Officer passed an award & determined amount of compensation payable to the claimants. The claimants received amount of compensation and proceeded to file individual Reference Applications claiming enhancement in amount of compensation. The claimants led evidence before the reference Court. The reference Court, on consideration of material placed before the Court, found that the claimants – applicants herein are not entitled to receive enhancement in amount of compensation. It was also found by the reference Court that the Reference Applications were presented beyond the prescribed period of limitation. The reference Court, therefore, proceeded to reject the Reference Applications.

3] Here is a case where the claimants before the reference Court placed evidence in support of their claim before reference Court. The evidence presented by the claimants in the form of oral testimony of witnesses as well as documentary evidence was considered by the reference Court. The reference Court did not find it appropriate to direct enhancement in the amount of compensation. The reference Court found that the Reference Applications were resented beyond prescribed period of limitation and as such, rejected the reference applications.

4] Considering facts of the case, I am of the opinion that the Civil Revision Applications presented by the claimants questioning legality and validity of the decision rendered by the reference Court are not maintainable and appropriate remedy is to present First Appeal as prescribed by Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act. A reference can be made to the judgment in the matter of KawaduMadhav Bansod Vs. State of Maharashtra and anr., 2004(4) Bom. C.R. 495. In the said decision, it is observed by the learned single Judge of this Court in paragraph 7 of the judgment that :

“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 the compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer was correct. So the order cannot be taken to be an adjudication and therefore the same cannot be treated to be an award. The order passed by the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Yavatmal also cannot be treated to be a dismissal of the reference in default. The learned counsel for revision petitioner submitted that the case could not be dismissed in default also.”

In paragraphs 8 and 9 of the said judgment, it was observed thus :

8. On the point as to what should be the form of award and the duty of the court when the claimant is absent or if present fails to adduce evidence, the learned counsel for revision petitioner cited, M.S. Ramaiah and Ors. v. Special Land Acquisition Officer, AIR 1974 Karnataka 122, This case lays down that when a reference is made to the