( 1 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 76 OF 2009 Govind s/o. Navasaji Shitale and anr. .. Applicants Versus The State of Maharashtra and ors. .. Respondents Shri M.M. Nerlikar, Advocate for the applicants. Shri S.B. Wadmare, A.G.P. for the respondents. CORAM : P.R. BORKAR,J. DATED : 05.08.2009 P.C. :- 1. Heard Adv. Shri M.M. Nerlikar for the applicants and A.G.P. Mrs. S.B. Wadmare for respondent-State. This Civil Revision Application is filed against the dismissal of Land Acquisition Reference No. 10 of 1996 by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Hingoli on 05.08.2004. 2. The facts as revealed from the arguments of the advocate for the appellants and appearing from the record are ( 2 ) that the present revision petitioner No.2 Neelabai is heir of Govind who is shown as revision petitioner No.1. The land belonging to Govind was acquired by the respondents and award was passed. Not being satisfied with the quantum of the amount awarded, Govind the original claimant and who is shown as Revision Petitioner No.1, filed Revision under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act and same came to be registered as L.A.R. No. 10 of 1996 in the Court of Civil Judge, Senior Division, Hingoli. The learned advocate for the appellant stated that Govind died on 01.08.1999. However, it is clear that nobody informed about his death to the Court. The matter proceeded as if Govind was alive and matter came to be dismissed ultimately. We do not find any explanation why in between 01.08.1999 to 05.08.2004, the revision petitioner No. 2 Nilabai, who claims to be legal representative of Govind, has not made any application for substituting her as heir of Govind and prosecuted the Land Acquisition Reference. 3. The learned advocate for the applicants Shri Nerlikar cited two cases. First is Vijaykumar Hanumanprasad Goenka V/s. State of Maharashtra, 2004 (3) Mh.L.J.1069 and Kawadu s/o. Madhav Bansod V/s. State of Maharashtra, 2004 (1) ( 3 ) Mh.L.J.980. The Single Bench of this Court in both the matters has held that the Court should not dismiss the Land Acquisition Reference merely because party is absent; it must consider the material on record. After reading the citations, it appears that there was some material before the Court on the basis of which those Land Acquisition References could have been decided and therefore the Court observed that instead of dismissing for default, the Court ought to have considered the material on record. 4. In this case admittedly besides the Reference Application, no other document was produced before the Court. It is now well settled law that in Land Acquisition References the burden of proving that the compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition officer is not as per the market value, is necessarily on the claimant. The claimant has to adduce evidence to show that he was not awarded market price. In this case, admittedly there was no evidence whatsoever before the Court. In the circumstances, in absence of any admissible evidence before the Court, such as to show that comparable land/s fetched more value at the time of Notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act ( 4 ) or unless there is other evidence to show that market price was not awarded, in my considered opinion, it cannot be said that the Judge in absence of intimation about death of Govind, committed any error in dismissing the Land Acquisition Reference. In the facts and circumstances this revision cannot be allowed. Though Govind died in 1999 and untill 05.08.2004, no attempt was made to bring the legal representatives on record. No application is given to Reference Court to recall its order of dismissal of reference and to condone delay in making application for setting aside abatement, to set aside abatement and to bring legal representatives of Govind on record. 5. In the facts and circumstances, no interference can be made with the impugned order in this Revision Petition. There is no prayer to condone the delay, set aside abatement and bring the legal representatives on record. In these circumstances, the Civil Revision Application is dismissed. [P.R. BORKAR,J.] snk/2009/JUN09/cra76.09