P. K. TRIPATHY, J. ( 1 ) AWARD dated 8th February, 1993 in Land Acquisition Misc. Case no. 107 of 1992 of the Court of Subordinate judge, Angul is under Challenge in this First apeal. ( 2 ) FOR the purpose of Talcher-Sambalpur rail Link an area of Ac. 0. 55 decimals of sarada-I land was acquired from the possession of the respondent under declaration no. 54938 dated 29. 8. 1989 published in orissa Gazette No. 1299 dated 7. 9. 1989. The said acquired land vide plot Nos. 713 and 714 of Khata No. 47 is situated in village bhogaberini. A total compensation of Rs. 17,624. 00 was awarded by the Land Acquisition Collector which included the other statutory benefits as provided in the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (in short the 'act' ). Respondent objected to the valuation claiming that acquired land is irrigated land and the market price of the land was not less than Rs. 70,000. Thus the reference was made by the Collector in accordance with the provision under Section 18 of the Act. ( 3 ) LEARNED Subordinate Judge conducted the enquiry during which respondent examined himself as P. W. 1 and relied upon Ext. 1, a registered sale deed dated 15. 11. 1988. Appellant did not adduce any evidence. Learned Subordinate Judge after consideration of the evidence did not rely on the evidence of the respondent regarding higher valuation which was claimed by him and also did not accept the valuation noted in Ext. 1. He held that the land was irrigated as the claimant "has filed the rent receipts showing payment of water tax which goes to show that the acquired land was irrigated" and therefore fixed the quantum of compensation at Rs. 50,000/-per acre. In that respect the other relevant portions of the finding of learned Subordinate Judge which is being criticised by the appellant reads as follows:"it may also be mentioned here that in cases of lands acquired for the Railways project in the near,by villages under earlier notifications, the rates of Sarada dofasali and Sarada Jala Dofasali lands have been finally confirmed by the hon'ble High Court Rs. 50,000/- per acre. Keeping in mind the said assessment and taking into consideration the materials placed before the Court in this case as discussed, on a reasonable guess work I assess the rate of the land at Rs. 50,000/-per acre. 50,000/- per acre. Keeping in mind the said assessment and taking into consideration the materials placed before the Court in this case as discussed, on a reasonable guess work I assess the rate of the land at Rs. 50,000/-per acre. " ( 4 ) LEARNED counsel for the appellant argues that no evidence worth the name is available to record the finding that the acquired land was a piece of irrigated land. In that context, learned counsel for the respondent though supports the impugned award of the learned subordinate Judge but he is unable to show any acceptable evidence from the L. C. R. which could have enabled the Subordinate Judge to record such a finding. It is noticed that in the application filed by the respondent claiming higher compensation, he did not make a statement that the acquired land is irrigated one. Though in examination-in-chief he stated that the acquired land is irrigated and he pays water tax but in cross-examination he stated that after consolidation operation he does not pay water tax. He has not filed any receipt in proof of payment of water tax. He has not stated from which year he stopped paying water tax. The above quoted findings recorded by learned subordinate Judge that respondent has filed rent receipt showing payment of water tax is apparent on the face of the record that it is a misstatement of fact in as much as neither there is anything on record to show that any receipt was filed by the respondent nor there is evidence to that effect. In other words, it appears that learned Subordinate Judge's finding on the aforesaid aspect is based on no evidence and therefore such findjng which was the basis for awarding higher compensation, is perverse and hence liable to be set aside. ( 5 ) LEARNED counsel for the appellant further argues that learned Subordinate judge has not mentioned the particulars of the judgment of this Court where valuation was determined @ Rs. 50,000/- per acre and whether the concerned acquisitioned land belonged to the same category in the same locality. Indeed it is strange to note that an experienced officer in the rank of Subordinate Judge has committed such a silly mistake. Therefore, the aforesaid findings of the Subordinate Judqe is equally non-sustainable. 50,000/- per acre and whether the concerned acquisitioned land belonged to the same category in the same locality. Indeed it is strange to note that an experienced officer in the rank of Subordinate Judge has committed such a silly mistake. Therefore, the aforesaid findings of the Subordinate Judqe is equally non-sustainable. ( 6 ) IT is seen that the award passed by the learned Subordinate Judge was neither based on any evidence nor based on exercising a good guess work. The landed property was acquired as back as in 1989 and about a decade has already elapsed in the meantime. Thus, this court desired for an amicable agreement between the parties relating to the rate of the land. Respondent does not agree. Under such circumstances this Court has no option other than remanding the matter for fresh adjudication in accordance with law. ( 7 ) HENCE while setting aside the impugned award the Land Acquisition Misc. Case No. 119 of 1992 is remanded to the Court of Subordinate Judge for disposal in accordance with law. The reference may be answered after conducting the inquiry expeditiously and the reference be disposed of within a period of two months from the date of receipt of the L. C. R. To avoid any further delay, both the parties are directed to appear before the Subordinate Judge by 11th September, 2000 and neither of them shall be entitled to fresh notice from the lower court. Learned Subordinate Judge shall proceed with the inquiry in accordance with law even in absence of either of the parties and shall pass the award in accordance with law. The appeal is accordingly allowed but parties are directed to bear their respective cost of litigation in this forum. ( 8 ) BEFORE parting with this appeal, it is observed that the appellant being the authority to send the reference, it is his duty to assist the Court for determining the real compensation on the basis of market price in accordance with the provision of Section 23 of the act. In that respect, if the appellant shall show his callousness, learned Subordinate Judge may award heavy cost to be paid by the erring officer and not by the Government as because insincerity or negligence of such officer shall not be a burden on the State Exchequer. Appeal allowed.