Judgment :- Since the issue involved in this Civil Revision Petition is covered by an Order of this Court, the main Civil Revision Petition is taken up for disposal. 2. This Civil Revision Petition is filed against the Order dated 12.12.2007 made in I.A.No.265 of 2007 in L.A.O.P.No.15 of 2006, on the file of the learned Principal Subordinate Judge, Kumbakonam, wherein, the request of the petitioner seeking appointment of Advocate Commissioner to ascertain the market value of the land acquired was rejected. 3. The said Interlocutory Application was dismissed by the learned Principal Subordinate Judge, Kumbakonam, by stating that the Court was of the opinion that no independent body shall be allowed to go over to the suit property to make enquiry about the prevailing market value within the vicinity of acquired suit property. 4. The question as to whether an Advocate Commissioner can be appointed to ascertain the market value of the land acquired came up for consideration before this Court in Sreekantan, V, & another v. The Revenue Divisional Officer, reported in 2002 1 LW 620 , wherein, in paragraphs 8 to 14, this Court held as follows:- 8. Section 53 of the Land Acquisition Act provides that so far as they are not inconsistent with anything contained in the Land Acquisition Act, the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure shall apply to all proceedings before the Court under the Land Acquisition Act. Section 18 is the provision under which reference is made to Court. When the person interested does not accept the award, he can make an application in writing to the Collector requiring the latter to refer the matter for determination by the Court. The objection of the person interested may relate to the measurement of the land, the amount of the compensation, the persons to whom it is payable or the appointment of the compensation among the persons interested. There is a time limit fixed for applying for reference. 9. In the statement filed by the revision petitioners, it is set out in detail as to how the value fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer is inadequate. It is not necessary to refer in extenso to the particulars given in the application for reference. Suffice it to say that the petitioners are thoroughly dissatisfied with the compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer. 10. It is not necessary to refer in extenso to the particulars given in the application for reference. Suffice it to say that the petitioners are thoroughly dissatisfied with the compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer. 10. Order 26, Rule 9 is clear that for ascertaining the market value of any property a commission may be issued. 11. It has been held in Parameshwari Devi etc., v. Punjab State Electricity Board and another ( AIR 1994 SC 1142 ) that, "the burden regarding the market value of land lies on the claimant/Land owner, and if he fails to discharge the burden and he did not make any effort in this direction by letting in proper evidence, then he would ultimately suffer". In fact, the Supreme Court has held that "It is the duty of the claimant to prove sale deeds by adducing evidence either by vendor or vendee or attesting witness of passing of the consideration under the sale deed to prove that the sale transactions are genuine transactions between the willing vendor and willing vendee, that the consideration had in fact been passed under the document duly registered, represent the prevailing market value and also the lands under acquisition and the land concerning the sale are similarly situated and possessed of same or similar nature, advantages etc". 12. It has been held in K. Krishna Reddy and others v. Special Deputy Collector, Land Acquisition Unit II, Lmd Karim Nagar, Andhra Pradesh (1988-4 SCC 163) that "the award in land acquisition matters must be given without loss of time as with rising inflation, delayed payment might lose all charm and utility of the compensation." In that case, Commissioner was indeed appointed to go to the spot and after taking the relevant matters into consideration, give a report regarding the nature of the land and its value. Thus, the appointment of an Advocate Commissioner in references arising under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act is now settled. It is not necessary that such Advocate Commissioner should be an expert. He can always take the assistance of experts like Surveyors, Engineers, etc. Appointment of Commissioners will also save the time of the Court, in such matters. Thus, the appointment of an Advocate Commissioner in references arising under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act is now settled. It is not necessary that such Advocate Commissioner should be an expert. He can always take the assistance of experts like Surveyors, Engineers, etc. Appointment of Commissioners will also save the time of the Court, in such matters. In Satheeshkumar v. Special Tahsildar (LA), (2000-1 KLT 416), it has been held by S.Marimuthu, J, of the Kerala High Court that, "an Advocate Commissioner can be appointed for ascertaining the market value of any property in land acquisition matters and the Court can rightly act upon the report of such Advocate Commissioner". 14. For all the reasons stated above, the Order of the Lower Court cannot be sustained and the same is set aside and the application filed by the revision petitioner in I.A.No.381 of 1997 in L.A.O.P.No.9/97 will stand allowed and an Advocate Commissioner will be appointed by the Lower Court for ascertaining the market value of the property subject matter of the land acquisition proceedings. The Civil Revision Petition is allowed. The stay petition C.M.P.No.8504 of 1999 is closed. There will be no order as to costs." 5. From the perusal of the above Order, it is evident that the learned Judge followed the Judgment of the Honble Supreme Court in K.Krishna Reddy and others v. Special Deputy Collector, Land Acquisition Unit II, Lmd Karim Nagar, Andhra Pradesh reported in 1988 4 SCC 163 , wherein, an Advocate Commissioner was appointed to go to the spot and after taking the relevant matters into consideration, give a report regarding the nature of the land and its value. Thus, this Court held that appointment of an Advocate Commissioner in references arising under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act is now settled. The learned Judge also followed the Kerala High Court Order in Satheeshkumar v. Special Tahsildar (LA), reported in 2000-1 KLT 416 and ultimately the order, refusing to appoint Advocate Commissioner, was set aside with a direction to the Reference Court to appoint an Advocate Commissioner for ascertaining the market value of the property, subject matter of the land acquisition proceedings. 6. 6. In view of the above and since there is no prohibition in appointing the Advocate Commissioner to ascertain the real market value of the land, the Order dated 12.12.2007 made in I.A.No.265 of 2007 in L.A.O.P.No.15 of 2006, on the file of the learned Principal Subordinate Judge, Kumbakonam, is set aside and I.A.No.265 of 2007 is allowed as prayed for. The learned Subordinate Judge, Kumbakonam is directed to appoint an Advocate Commissioner, who shall get an assistance of the learned Surveyor and shall submit a report within a specified time. 7. The Civil Revision Petition is allowed. No costs.