Judgment : This civil revision petition is directed against the order dated 31st May, 2003 passed in Miscellaneous No. 119 of 2000 on the file of the II Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Bijapur. 2. The facts in brief are that, the land bearing R.S. No. 411 measuring 6 acres situate at Kakkalameli Village, Sindagi Taluk, Bijapur District was notified and acquired by State. Government through petitioner for the purpose of construction of approach road at Indi, Indi Taluk, Bijapur District. Petitioner herein, after taking into consideration all the relevant factors available on record, has passed the award dated 18th March, 1991. Not being satisfied with the award passed by petitioner on the ground that, the same is inadequate, respondent herein has filed an application under Section 18(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, seeking enhancement of compensation dated 12th July, 1991 within ninety days from the date of receipt of the award notice under Section 12(2) served on 24th April, 1991. Since petitioner did not refer the matter seeking reference to the jurisdictional Reference Court, inspite of filing the application under Section 18(1) of the Act, respondent was constrained to file application under Section 18(3)(b) of the Land Acquisition Act. Dated 10th September. 1997, along with an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, for condonation of delay of two years eleven months. The said application had come up for consideration before the II Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Bijapur, dated 31st May, 2003 and the Court below has allowed the said application filed by respondent and directed the petitioner to refer the petition along with the relevant documents to the jurisdictional claims Tribunal/Court in respect of the land in question. Being aggrieved by the impugned order passed by Court below, petitioner herein felt necessitated to present the instant revision seeking appropriate reliefs, as stated supra. 3. I have heard learned Government Pleader appearing for petitioner and learned Counsel appearing for respondent. 4. After careful evaluation of the entire material available on file and after microscopic evaluation of the original records available on file, it emerges that, respondent has filed the application under Section 18(3)(b) of the Land Acquisition Act dated 10th September. 1997 and the same is available in the original records at red ink page 6. 4. After careful evaluation of the entire material available on file and after microscopic evaluation of the original records available on file, it emerges that, respondent has filed the application under Section 18(3)(b) of the Land Acquisition Act dated 10th September. 1997 and the same is available in the original records at red ink page 6. It can be seen that, along with the said application, respondent has also filed the application for condonation of delay in filing the 18(3)(b) application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act on 10th September, 1997 and the said application is available at red ink pages 19 to 21. 5. When this matter had come up for consideration before the Court below, the Court below has neither looked into nor considered nor has verified the original records which were very much available on its file. Further, when such an inordinate delay is there and an application is filed to condone the same, it is surprising to note that, there is no whisper regarding the application filed by respondent under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay of two years eleven months in filing the 18(3)(b) application before the II Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Bijapur. The manner in which the Court below has proceeded and passed the impugned order without reference to the relevant material available on file and the case made out by petitioner is highly untenable and cannot be appreciated at all. Further, it is astonishing to note that, the Court below has not even referred as to how many days' delay is there in filing the 18(3)(b) application. Therefore, it can be concluded that, the Trial Court has proceeded to pass the impugned order in a mechanical manner and without proper application of mind, resulting in serious miscarriage of justice. The reasons assigned at paragraph 8 for passing the impugned order is that. 18(1) application has been filed within 90 days from the date of knowledge or receipt of the award notice under Section 12(2) of the Act and once the said application is filed within 90 days, it is duty cast on the Competent Authority to refer the matter to the jurisdictional Court for claiming higher compensation as sought for by respondent. 18(1) application has been filed within 90 days from the date of knowledge or receipt of the award notice under Section 12(2) of the Act and once the said application is filed within 90 days, it is duty cast on the Competent Authority to refer the matter to the jurisdictional Court for claiming higher compensation as sought for by respondent. The said rationale of the Court below in proceeding to pass the impugned order when the original records available on file speak much contrary to the same, cannot at all be appreciated. For the sake of consideration, even if the Counsel who represented the parties had not assisted the Court properly and brought to its notice, it was duty cast on the Court below to have looked into the original records and thereafter to have proceeded further and passed the order, in strict compliance with the relevant provisions of the Land Acquisition Act and Rules and the original records. Admittedly as referred above, there is a delay of nearly two years eleven months in filing the 18(3)(b) application and this fact has been categorically admitted by respondent-claimant himself and filed the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act seeking condonation of delay in filing the 18(3)(b) application. This clinching documentary evidence available on record has been lost sight of by the Court below and proceeded to allow the 18(3)(b) application filed by respondent without assigning cogent reasons and contrary to the relevant records available on file. Therefore, I am of the considered view that, at any stretch of imagination, the impugned order passed by the Court below cannot be sustained and hence, the same is liable to be set aside and the matter requires reconsideration by the jurisdictional authority to decide the same after affording opportunity to the parties. 6. In the light of the facts and circumstances of the case, as stated above, the revision petition filed by petitioner is disposed of as follows. (I) The revision petition filed by petitioner-State is allowed in part; (II) The impugned order passed by the learned II Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Bijapur dated 31st May. 6. In the light of the facts and circumstances of the case, as stated above, the revision petition filed by petitioner is disposed of as follows. (I) The revision petition filed by petitioner-State is allowed in part; (II) The impugned order passed by the learned II Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Bijapur dated 31st May. 2003 in Miscellaneous No. 119 of 2000 is hereby set aside; (III) Matter stands remitted back to the II Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Bijapur, for reconsideration of the matter afresh and to take appropriate decision in accordance with law and in strict compliance with the relevant provisions of the Karnataka Land Acquisition Act and Rules, bearing in mind the well-settled principles of law laid down by the Apex Court and this Court in catena of judgments and after affording reasonable opportunity to the petitioner and respondent and dispose of the same, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order; (IV) Registry is hereby directed to transfer the amount deposited by the petitioner as per order dated 13th December, 2007 to the II Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Bijapur in Misc. No. 119 of 2000 immediately; (V) Learned II Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division). Bijapur, is thereafter directed to pay the said cost to the respondent through his Counsel immediately; (VI) Office is directed to return the original records to the II Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Bijapur, forthwith.