THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B.PRAKASH RAO AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.DURGA PRASAD LAAS.NOs.7, 11, 12, 20, 26, 259, 263, 264, 265 OF 2006 AND 1968, 1980, 1981, 1982, 1987, 1988, 1996, 1998, 2000, 2003 AND 2004 OF 2005 COMMON JUDGMENT: {Per the Hon’ble Sri Justice B.Prakash Rao} Since all these appeals are at the instance of the respective claimants as against the reference made under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 {“the Act” for brevity} arising out of common judgment on the file of the reference Court, they are taken up together for disposal. The appellants, who are the claimants, filed these appeals, inter alia, seeking the correctness of the common order dated 28.01.2005 in L.A.O.P.No.2 of 2000 & Batch on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Nandikotkur, in rejecting the reference and confirming the award passed by the Land Acquisition Officer fixing the market value. The facts, in brief, are that in pursuance of the notification dated 20.05.1999 issued under Section 4 (1) of the Act; an extent of Acs.20.78 cents of Talamudipi Village was acquired for the purpose of construction of Bund of Alaganur Balancing Reservoir. Thereafter, the matter was taken up by the Land Acquisition Officer. After enquiry and also after appearance of the respective claimants, the Land Acquisition Officer fixed the market rate at Rs.65,000/- per acre with all the statutory benefits. Since the claim by all the claimants is much more at Rs.1,20,000/- per acre, they were not satisfied with the award and sought for reference. During the course of enquiry, it is seen from the record that even though the matter was posted and adjourned for production of evidence, the appellants could not possibly produce any evidence in support of their claim. Ultimately, the Court below rejected the reference and confirmed the award. Hence, the appeals. Having considered the submissions made and on perusal of the material available on record, we are of the view that in the absence of any material to support either way, it cannot be said that there is proper fixation of market rate, which is just and reasonable as contemplated under Section 23 of the Act. It is now well established that in a reference under Section 18 of the Act, the reference Court could not possibly dismiss the same for default or pass any ex parte order. Necessarily, the Court has to pass orders on merits and necessarily it needs some material either way. Even on behalf of the respondent-Land Acquisition Officer, no attempt has been made to examine any person or produce any sale transaction. No explanation is forthcoming for such approach as well. In fact, the enquiry before the Land Acquisition Officer would form part of the award, but no attempt has been made by the State or its representatives. Having regard to the substantive rights of the parties involved and which are taken away by the States acquisition under eminent domain, which cannot affect the substantive rights in fixing the market rate, we deem it proper to give an opportunity to both the sides to produce necessary evidence and material in support or rebuttal. In the circumstances, all the appeals are allowed and the common order dated 28.01.2005 in L.A.O.P.No.2 of 2000 & Batch on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Nandikotkur, is set aside. All the matters are remitted back to the Court below for fresh disposal. We also make it clear that both the sides are at liberty to adduce the evidence, if they chose to do so. No costs. _________________ (B.PRAKASH RAO, J) __________________ (P.DURGA PRASAD, J) 7th February 2011 RRB