JUDGMENT : P.K. Misra, J. - Heard counsel for the petitioner and learned Addl. Government Advocate for opposite parties. This writ application arises against the decision of the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Anandpur, refusing to answer the reference made u/s 18 of the Land Acquisition Act on the ground that the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to consider the Kissam of the land u/s 18 of the Act. In the present case, after the award was made, the present petitioner had filed an application before the Land Acquisition Collector for making a reference to the Civil Court claiming higher compensation on the ground that the Kisam of the land had not been properly ascertained or verified by the Land Acquisition Collector. The Civil Judge seems to be of the opinion that in a reference u/s 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, the Civil Court can only decide the measurement of the land, the amount of compensation, the person to whom it is payable, or the apportionment of the compensation amongst the persons interested and since question of Kisam does not come within any of these, he has got no jurisdiction to decide the matter. 2. The aforesaid opinion of the Civil Judge is thoroughly misconceived. A person can claim higher compensation on several grounds including the one that the nature of the land, i.e. the Kisam of the land is not what it is purported to be under the award of the Collector. For example, if the land is recorded as an agricultural land earlier, subsequently the said land may have ceased to be agricultural land at the time of acquisition. Since the valuation depends upon the nature of the use of the land, it goes without saying that a person claiming higher compensation can always say that the land should not be treated as an agricultural land or a particular type of agricultural land and should be treated as a land of superior type. Since the Civil Court has got plenary jurisdiction to decide about the compensation payable, it has got jurisdiction to decide about the nature of use of the land. 3. For the aforesaid reason, the order of the Civil Judge is quashed and the Civil Judge is directed to dispose of the reference on merit by permitting the parties to adduce fresh evidence, if necessary. 3. For the aforesaid reason, the order of the Civil Judge is quashed and the Civil Judge is directed to dispose of the reference on merit by permitting the parties to adduce fresh evidence, if necessary. It is made clear that no opinion has been expressed regarding the merit of the case relating to the nature of the land. The writ application is accordingly allowed. No costs. Urgent certified copy of the order may be given on proper application. Final Result : Allowed