ORDER These three revision petitions arise out of the common judgment and award dated 27th June, 2003 in LAC No. 13 of 2001 (C.R.P. No. 3218 of 2003), LAC No. 12 of 2001 (C.RP. No. 3216 of 2003) and LAC No. 14 of 2001 (C.R.P. No. 3219 of 2003) respectively on the file of the Civil Judge (Senior Division) at Gangavati. 2. The grievance of the claimants-petitioners in these civil revision petitions is that, the land bearing Sy. No. 8/A measuring 4 acres 7 guntas of Ingaldal Village, Gangavati Taluk (C.RP. No. 3218 of 2003 and LAC No. 13 of 2001); the land bearing Sy. No. 13/1 measuring 5 acres 13 guntas oflngaldal Village, Gangavati Taluk (C.R.P. No. 3216 of 2003 and LAC No. 12 of 2001) and land bearing Sy. No.5 measuring 6 acres 38 guntas ofIngaldal Village, Gangavati Taluk (C.R.P. No. 3219 of 2003 and LAC No. 14 of 2001) had been notified and acquired by the State Government for public purpose, i.e., for construction of Ingaldal tank vide preliminary notification dated 3rd December, 1990 issued under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and the same was published in the Karnataka Gazette on 7th March, 1991 followed by final declaration issued under Section 6( 1) of the Land Acquisition Act on 17th March, 1992, published in the Karnataka Gazette on 2nd April, 1992. After issuing the final declaration, notice under Sections 9 and 10 of the Land Acquisition Act were issued, calling upon the claimants-petitioners herein to file the claim application seeking compensation. The Land Acquisition Officer, after taking into consideration the relevant factors such as the nature of land, potentiality of lands, etc., has passed the award dated 15th April, 1994. After passing the award under Section 12(2) of the Land Acquisition Act, award notice was issued to the claimants-petitioners herein. The petitioners herein have filed the application under Section 18(1) of the Land Acquisition Act on the ground that, the amount awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer is inadequate and requested the Land Acquisition Officer to refer the matter to the jurisdictional Reference Court for enhancement of compensation. The Reference Court in turn, numbered the said reference applications as LAC Nos. 13 of 2001, 12 of 2001 and 14 of 2001 respectively. The Reference Court in turn, numbered the said reference applications as LAC Nos. 13 of 2001, 12 of 2001 and 14 of 2001 respectively. The said applications had come up for consideration before the Reference Court and the Reference Court has rejected the applications on the ground that, the award passed by the Land Acquisition Officer is beyond the period of two years from the date of final notification and that, the said award cannot be accepted under Section 11-A of the Land Acquisition Act. Assailing the correctness of the impugned common order passed by the Reference Court, rejecting the applications filed by these petitioners under Section 18(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, the claimants-petitioners herein felt necessitated to present the instant civil revision petitions. 3. I have heard learned Counsel appearing for claimants-petitioners and learned Government Pleader appearing for respondents for considerable length of time. After careful evaluation of the entire original records available on file threadbare and after going through the grounds urged by claimants-petitioners herein in these revision petitions, including the order passed by the Reference Court, the only question that arise for consideration in these revision petitions is as to: "Whether the impugned order passed by the Reference Court is sustainable in law?" After critical evaluation of the original records available on file and the order passed by the Reference Court, particularly paragraph 11 of the order, it emerges on the face of the original records and the order that, the Reference Court has committed a grave error much less material irregularity. The Reference Court has rejected the applications filed by the claimants-petitioners herein on the sole ground that, the award passed by the Land Acquisition Officer is beyond two years inasmuch as the final declaration is issued on 17th March, 1992 and published in the Official Gazette on 2nd April, 1992 and the award is passed by the Land Acquisition Officer on 14th April, 1994. The Reference Court has held that, even if the date of the final declaration is taken as 2nd April, 1992, on which date it was published and the award passed by the Land Acquisition Officer is taken as 15th April, 1994 even though the same is accepted by the Deputy Commissioner by his order dated 5th July, 1994, even then the award passed by the Land Acquisition Officer does not come within the period of two years. Therefore, the Reference Court has held that, the award is not passed within two years period from the date of issuance of final declaration for the purpose of limitation as prescribed under Section 11-A of the Land Acquisition Act when the said section clearly stipulated that, an award under Section 11 should be passed within a period of two years from the date of publication of the final declaration and if no award is made within that period, the entire proceedings for the acquisition of the land shall lapse. The said reasoning given by the Reference Court is contrary to the relevant mandatory provision of Land Acquisition Act. After microscopic KOPPAL 659 evaluation of the original records available on file including Exhibit D. I-certified copy of the award, which is made available before the Reference Court, and is very much available in the original records at page B2I, it is manifest on the face of the reference made by the Land Acquisition Officer at item No. 3 of the reference wherein, it has been specifically referred that, the lands in question notifed for acquisition have been published on the grama chavadi on 28th July, 1992. It is relevant to extract Section 6(2) of the Land Acquisition Act, which reads thus: "6. (2) Every declaration shall be published in the Official Gazette, and in two daily newspapers circulating in the locality in which the land is situate of which at least one shall be in the regional language, and the Collector shall cause public notice of the substance of such declaration to be given at convenient places in the said locality (the last of the date of such publication and the giving of such public notice, being hereinafter referred to as the date of the publication of the declaration), and such declaration shall state the district or other territorial division in which the land is situate, the purpose for which it is needed, its approximate area and, where a plan shall have been made of the land, the place where such plan may be inspected". (emphasis supplied) After careful reading of sub-section (2) of Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 with cross-verification of the original records available on file, it can be seen that, at Reference No. 3 of the award passed by the Land Acquisition Officer which is available in the original records at read ink page B. 21, it has been specifically referred that, the last publication was made in the grama chavadi on 28th July, 1992. If that is so, then the award passed by the Land Acquisition Officer dated 15th April, 1994 comes well-within the period of two years and to be specific, the duration comes to one year nine months and odd days. This has not been looked into nor evaluated by the Reference Court. This shows beyond all reasonable doubts that, the Reference Court, due to lack of proper application of mind and without properly going through the records and without proper evaluation of the records, has proC3eded to pass the impugned order in a very casual manner, without going into the ground reality of the subject-matter, wherein, valuable lands of the claimants-petitioners have been notified and acquired by the Competent Authority, not once, but twice for the public purpose. Once the claimants have lost their valuable lands, they are entitled to just and reasonable compensation as envisaged under Article 300-A of the Constitution of India. The Reference Court ought to have applied its mind and thoroughly verified the entire original records that were very much available before it and that too, the certified copy of the award passed by the Land Acquisition Officer had in fact been marked as Ex. D. 1, which was also very much available before the Reference Court. Therefore, having regard to all these aspects of the matter, I am of the considered view that, the Reference Court has committed a grave error much less material irregularity inasmuch as it has taken an unjustifiable stand that, two years' period has already elapsed when in fact, the claimants-petitioners herein have filed the application well-within the time stipulated under the Act. 4. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, as stated above, at any stretch of imagination, the impugned order passed by the Reference Court cannot be sustained. Hence, the same is liable to be set aside as perverse. 5. 4. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, as stated above, at any stretch of imagination, the impugned order passed by the Reference Court cannot be sustained. Hence, the same is liable to be set aside as perverse. 5. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, as stated above, and taking into consideration the factual legal aspect of the matter, as stated supra, these three revision petitions filed by claimants-petitioners herein are liable to succeed. Accordingly, they are disposed of with the following directions: (i) The instant three revision petitions filed by claimants-petitioners herein are allowed; (ii) The impugned order passed by the Court of Civil Judge (Senior Division), Gangavati, dated 27th June, 2003 passed in LAC Nos. 13 of 2001, 12 of 2001 and 14 of 2001 respectively, are hereby set aside and the matter stands remitted back to the Reference Court for reconsideration afresh and to take appropriate decision in accordance with law, after affording an opportunity to the claimants-petitioners herein and also the respondents and dispose of the same, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within an outer limit of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 6. Office is directed to return the entire original records to the Reference Court immediately. 7. With these observations, the civil revision petitions filed by claimants-petitioners herein stand disposed of.