1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR Civil Revision Application No.21 of 2011 (Sadanand s/o Amrutrao Dhone and others v. The State of Maharashtra, through the Collector, Amravati, and others) Office Notes, Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions Court's or Judge's orders and Registrar's order Shri G.R. Sadar, Advocate for Applicants. Shri A.M. Deshpande, AGP for Respondent Nos.1 and 2. Shri M.M. Agnihotri, Advocate for Respondent No.3. Coram : R.K. Deshpande, J. Dated : 28 th March, 2011 1. This civil revision application challenges the judgment and order dated 9-10-2009 passed by the learned 3 rd Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Amravati, dismissing Land Acquisition Case No.455 of 1999. It was a case of reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The Reference Court has recorded the finding in para 13 of its judgment and order as under : “ In this matter, as the petitioners failed to enter the witness box and to lead the evidence or failed to place on record any documentary evidence regarding the sale instance or to show the market value of the acquired land, I am of the firm opinion that compensation 2 awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer is just and proper. Therefore, for want of evidence I am constrained to answer the issues in the negative accordingly.” The question is whether this civil revision application is maintainable in view of availability of remedy of appeal under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act. 2. Shri Sadar, the learned counsel appearing for the appellants, has relied upon the judgment of this Court in Kawadu s/o Madhav Bansod v. State of Maharashtra and another, reported in 2004(1) Mh.L.J. 980, to urge that when the reference is dismissed on the ground that the applicant remained absent and no evidence had been adduced by him, then there is no adjudication and hence the order impugned is not an award, as contemplated by Section 26(1) of the said Act. He has further relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in Safiya Bee v. Mohd. Vajahath Hussain alias Fasi, reported in (2011) 2 SCC 94, to urge that the judgment delivered by the learned Single Judge of this Court, cited supra, is binding. 3. There cannot be a dispute with the proposition that the ratio laid down by the learned Single Judge on earlier occasion is binding upon another learned Single Judge of the same Court. However, perusal of the finding recorded by the Reference Court in para 13, which is reproduced above, clearly shows that the Court has opined that the compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer is just and proper. If the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the said finding is wrong, 3 then the remedy of appeal is available to the appellant under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act. However, the judgment of the learned Single Judge of this Court in Kawadu's case, cited supra, relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellant, is not applicable to the facts of the present case, as there was no finding on the merits of the matter, which is decided. 4. In view of this, the civil revision application is dismissed. Judge pdl