Being aggrieved by the judgment and award dated

23.08.2013 passed in LAC No.44/2009 on the file of learned

Additional Senior Civil Judge, Raichur sitting at Deodurga.

Wherein

the

Reference

Court

dismissed

the

reference

application filed under Section 18(1) of Land Acquisition Act.

2.

Brief facts of the case is that:

Respondent has acquired land bearing Sy.No.87/A/O-

87/3, to the extent of 00 acre 25 guntas situated at village

Sugaral camp, Deodurga taluk under 4(1) notification dated

04.05.2007. The respondent has awarded market value of the

acquired land at the rate of Rs.10,76,094/- for the trees along

- 3 -

with statutory benefits. Being dissatisfied with the award

passed by the respondent, the claimant has filed Protest

petition under Section 18(1) of Land Acquisition Act before the

respondent and the same was transferred to the Reference

Court i.e., Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Raichur sitting at Deodurga,

which is registered as LAC No.44/2009. The Reference Court

has registered the Reference Petition only on the ground that

the claimants have not adduced any evidence. Being aggrieved

by this judgment and award passed by the Reference Court,

appellant has preferred this appeal.

3.

Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted his

arguments that originally the Reference petition was registered

on the file of the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Raichur in LAC

No.44/2009. Subsequently, as per the order of District court

dated 01.07.2009, it is made over to Prl. Senior Civil Judge,

Raichur. Again it was transferred to Addl. Senior Civil Judge,

Raichur, Devadurga taluk vide order dated 19.07.2009 in

No.53/Admn/2011.

Since

there

was

communication

gap

between the counsel and the appellant and the appellant was

not aware of the proceedings could not represent the matter

and lead his evidence. Further it is submitted that being a

- 4 -

social legislation and the appellant has lost the very valuable

property with sentimental feelings. The reference court would

not have been dismissed the Reference application which

resulted in substantial loss to the appellant.

4.

Further the Reference Court has overlooked that

the appellant has filed the Protest petition under Section 18(1)

of the Land Acquisition Act. Wherein, it is contented that 130

teak trees and the market value of the teakwood in local

market would certainly fetch Rs.1,00,000/- ghan meter, though

the respondent has committed a grave error in awarding very

meager compensation for the aged teak trees. More so,

respondent-State has not disputed the very existence of 130

teak trees in the acquired land and has not awarded

compensation for land. The Reference Court ought to have

taken judicial notice of the same and determine the market

value of the trees. Non considering the same, resulted in

miscarriage of justice. On all these grounds, sought for allow

this appeal to afford an opportunity to establish his claim

before the Reference Court and to remand the matter to the

Reference Court for re-determination of the market value of the

trees on acquired land.

- 5 -

5.

Learned counsel for the appellant has produced

certified copy of the order sheet pertaining to LAC No.44/2009,

which reveals that LAO/AC Raichur has referred the petition

under Section 18(1) of the Land Acquisition Act to the Court on

16.04.2009. This order sheet reveals that as per order dated

24.07.2009, as per the order of Learned District and Sessions

Judge, Raichur vide Order No.80/ADMN/2009 dated 01.07.2009

the case was transferred from Addl. Civil Judge (Sr.Dn),

Raichur to Prl.Civil Judge, (Sr.Dn), Raichur. The order sheet

dated 02.08.2011 reveals that the case was transferred to

Addl. Senior Civil Judge Judge, Raichur as it belongs to

Deodurga taluk vide District court order No.5./ADMN/2011

dated 19.07.2011. After transfer of this case to the Additional

Senior Civil Judge, Deodurga taluk vide District Court order

No.53/ADMN/2011 dated 19.07.2011, the Reference Court has

not issued any notice to