Applicability of the provisions of C.P.C.to all proceedings under L.A.Act.

K. SAMPATH, J.

( 1 ) THE civil revision petition has been filed against the order of the learned Subordinate Judge, Kuzhithuri, dismissing the application in I. A. No. 381 of 1997 in l. A. O. P. No. 9 of 1997 on his file. The application itself was for the appointment of an advocate Commissioner under Order 26, Rule 9 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil procedure for the purpose of ascertaining the following facts: (1) Prepare a plan of the acquired land separately showing the areas acquired from the shares of first claimant and the second claimant with reference to the sketch filed by the claimants in Court and as per the marks made on the requisition body; (2) Estimate the value of the building bearing door No. 9/35-A and the trees standing on the acquired land from the share of the first claimant; (3) Estimate the value of the land, building bearing door No 9/35, the compound wall and other structures falling within the acquired land from the share of the second claimant; (4) Estimate the value of land at kuzhithurai in the open market; (5) Note whether the acquired land is situated very close to the kuzhithurai Junction, Devikumari women's College, Training school, Banks and other public offices; and (6) Note such other matters at the request of the claimants at the spot.

( 2 ) THE L A. O. P. is for enhancement of compensation. The allegations in the affidavit filed in support of the application for the appointment of a Commissioner are that the Land acquisition Officer fixed a pitiably inadequate compensation for the land and building acquired from the revision petitioners, that it is absolutely necessary to appoint a Commissioner to note the advantages and potentiality of the acquired land and its proximity to the commercial area, educational institutions, public offices and to assess the value of the building with the aid of a building expert.

( 3 ) THE respondent/state opposed the application contending that the Land Acquisition Officer correctly fixed the compensation as per the rules and regulations of the Government after analysing the data land equivalent to the acquired land, that the case is not a civil suit and that it is not necessary to have the assistance of a Commissioner.

( 4 ) THE learned Subordinate Judge dismissed the application holding that the Advocate Commissioner is not competent to fix the value and there is absolutely no ground to appoint any Advocate Commissioner.

( 5 ) AS against the dismissal, the present revision petition has been filed.

( 6 ) MR. K. Sreekumaran Nair, learned counsel for the revision petitioners, submitted that the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure are made applicable to proceedings before the court by virtue of Section 53 of the Land Acquisition Act (Act I of 1894)and that the application for the appointment of an Advocate commissioner ought to have been allowed. Section 53 of the Land Acquisition Act (Act I of 1894 ). The learned counsel also relied on the following decisions in support of his contentions: (1) K. Krishna Reddy and others v. Special Deputy Collector etc. and (2) Satheeshkumar v Special tahsildar (LA. ).

( 7 ) MR. M. Dhandapani, learned Government Advocate, opposed the stand of the revision petitioners and contended that the Land acquisition Officer had analysed all the available evidence such as sale details, documents, nature of land assessment and the village accounts and it is not possible for an Advocate commissioner to fix the value, that the lower court has rightly rejected the application and that no interference is called for.

( 8 ) SECTION 53 of the Land Acquisition Act provides that so far as they are not inconsistent with anything contained in the Land acquisition Act, the provisions of the Code of civil Procedure shall apply to all proceedings before the Court under the Land Acquisition act. Section 18 is the provision under which reference is made to Court. When the person interested does not accept the award, he can m