CMPMO No. 543 of 2009 23.8.2010 Present: Mr. Romesh Verma counsel for the petitioner. Mr. Vikas Rathore, Dy. A.G. for respondent No.1. Mr. Neeraj Gupta counsel for respondent No.2. This petition is misconceived and not maintainable. Not only was the evidence of the petitioner closed by the impugned order but the main reference petition was also disposed of on the same date by the same order. Therefore, the remedy available to the petitioner is that of filing an appeal under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act. The petition is accordingly dismissed. Needless to say that the petitioner is at liberty to avail the remedy available to him in accordance with law. 23rd August, 2010 ( Deepak Gupta ) ™ Judge.